IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2009 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 29006 of 2009(U) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. NARAYANAN NAIR, S/O. RADHA KRISHNAN NAIR, KIZHAKANATTU HOUSE, MANAKKADU P.O. 2. JOSE JOSEPH, S/O. OUSEPH, PULIMOOTTIL HOUSE, THODUPUZHA. 3. JOSEPH JOSEPH, NETTUKATTIL HOUSE, THODUPUZHA. 4. REV. SR. PRASANDHA MOTHER SUPERIOR, F.C. CONVENT, THODUPUZHA. 5. CHACKO, S/O. CHACKO, THAZHATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOLANI P.O., MANAKKAD,THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. MR.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, (LAND ACQUSITION OFFICER), REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, IDUKKI. 3. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.29006 of 2009-U = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 30th day of October, 2009. JUDGMENT 1.The different petitioners, who have different causes of action in relation to applications under Section 28A(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, seek directions for expeditious disposal of those applications. Matter does not relate to any joint holding. It does not relate to the same item of property. All that could be treated as common is that the Land Acquisition Officer is the Officer of Idukki and all the petitioners have filed applications under Section 28A(1). This is not a ground for consolidation of causes of action to file a writ petition, though numerous persons, having a common interest, may join a writ petition and pay court fee per capita. It also creates lot of inconvenience in adjudication because the Court and the WPC29006/09 -: 2 :- respondents have to look into the separate files of each of the petitioners and render a verdict. This is a matter which should gain the immediate attention of the Registry and such writ petitions deserve to be sieved as defective in the filing section. I am inclined to reject this writ petition. 2.Be that as it may, this writ petition having been numbered and sent up for admission, the learned Government Pleader has obtained instructions. This shows the swiftness with which the Government lawyering machinery in the Advocate General's office is now functioning with an aim to expedite the disposal process rather than clog the Courts with unnecessary litigations. Learned Senior Government Pleader Sri.I.V.Pramod states that the application of the first petitioner was allowed on 28.10.2009 and the applications of the other petitioners were listed on that day for hearing. Obviously, there is nothing to assume that those matters would not also be disposed of WPC29006/09 -: 3 :- most expeditiously. Recording that submission, this writ petition is closed. The Office will ensure that this judgment obtains the attention of concerned officers of the High Court. If any of the petitioners files application under Section 28A(3) being aggrieved by any portion of the award, immediate action shall be taken for disposal of such applications also. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/141109