IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2010 / 7TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1686 of 2010(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- S.RUBEENA, VRINDHAVAN, MANGALAPURAM, THONNAKKAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR SMT.P.LISSY JOSE. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONR OF LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), SREEPANDARAVAKA LANDS NO.III, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE CHIEF EXECUIVE OFFICER, TECHNO PARK, TECHNO PARK CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695581. ADV. SRI.P.A.AHAMED, SC, TECHNOPARK FOR R5 MS.K.R.DEEPA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.1686 of 2010 (I) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 27th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner submits that she owns 1.25 acres of land in R.S.No.514/1-2 of Methonnakkal Village in Thiruvananthapuram Taluk. It is stated that Section 4(1) notification under the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 05/10/2006 proposing to acquire various plots of land including that of the petitioner. Thereupon the petitioner filed Ext.P4 representation to the Minister for Revenue requesting for exclusion of her property. It is stated that the representation was forwarded to the 4 th respondent for enquiry and appropriate action. Accordingly, an enquiry was held and Ext.P5 report was submitted recommending to exclude a portion of the petitioner's property. It is stated that final orders in the matter was not passed, and therefore, the petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.24120/2008 resulting in Ext.P6 judgment dated 20/10/2008 directing the 4 th respondent to take a fresh decision on Ext.P4, after notice to the petitioner and the requisitioning authority. It is stated that accordingly the 4 th respondent considered WP(C) No.1686/2010 -2- the matter, conducted enquiry and passed Ext.P8 proceedings recommending to exclude 8 ares of land situated in the north- western corner of the petitioner's property, which is also included in the section 4(1) notification. It is stated that Ext.P8 is pending consideration of the 2nd respondent and that the recommendation therein can materialise only if the 2nd respondent passes final orders in the matter. It is complaining of delay on the part of the 2nd respondent in taking a decision on Ext.P8, this writ petition has been filed. 2. If as stated by the petitioner, Ext.P8 has been submitted by the 4th respondent as early as on 02/03/2009, there is no reason for the delay in taking a decision on Ext.P8. In view of the above, I direct the 2nd respondent to pass final orders on Ext.P8 with notice to the petitioner and the 5th respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of this writ petition. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg