IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2008 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 14148 of 2006(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. SAIDALAVI, SHAJI MANZIL, THALAKODE VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SULEKHA BEEVI, SHAJI MANZIL, THALAKODE VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.MANOJ SMT.SINDHU MANOJ RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SPECIAL TAHASILDAR, ADDL. LAND ACQUISITION UNIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANTH BALAJI FOR R1,2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).No.14148 OF 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT Learned counsel for the petitioners seek time to file reply affidavit. But I am not inclined to grant time since it is seen from paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit that the respondents have undertaken that they will “ refrain from demolishing any portion of the building bearing No.T.C.No.26/165-166 comprised in land not included in the portion ear-marked for acquisition in Ext.P3 notice”, provided the petitioners give an undertaking that they will not claim compensation on account of demolition of the portion of the structure within the alignment. Heard both sides. Learned Government Pleader submits that the portion of the structure coming within alignment comes to more than ½ of the structure and the respondents expected the petitioners- owners of the building to invoke their privilege under Section 49(1) of the Land Acquisition Act to insist that the entire structure should be acquired. But since the prayer in the writ petition indicates that the petitioners WPC.No.14148/06 2 want to retain ownership and possession over the portion of the structure not coming within the alignment and do not want to invoke Section 49(1) they have to give assurance to the respondents that they will not claim compensation from the respondents for alleged damages on account of demolition of portion of the structure which is admittedly coming within the alignment. The stand of the respondents is reasonable. I record the undertakings contained in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit submitted by the second respondent and dispose of the writ petition. It is always open to the petitioners to file undertakings before the second respondent in the line suggested in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit in which case undertakings given to this court through paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit will be honoured by the respondents. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No.14148/06 2