IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2011 / 15TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 38276 of 2010(H) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- A.K.GOPINATHAN, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.KUNJU KUNJU, VYASA, KAIPUZHA NORTH P.O., KULANADA, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADVS. SRI. K.SHAJ SRI.SAJJU.S RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION, PATHANAMTHITTA.689 645 2. KULANADA GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KULANADA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.PIN- 689 645 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA.PIN- 689 645 R1 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P. NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 38276 of 2010 H ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 5th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims to be the owner in possession and enjoyment of 58 Ares and 32.40 Ares of land situated in Survey Nos.204/7B/2 and 618/19 respectively of Kulanada village, which he obtained by Ext.P1 sale deed. According to the petitioner, a portion of his property has already been used for widening the Panangadu-Ramanchira road. It is stated that the respondents have threatened to annex further portion of the petitioner's property again for widening the road. According to the petitioner, he has not surrendered any portion of his property and that no portion of his property has been acquired by the respondents. It is stated that despite the above, respondents are threatening to forcefully trespass into the property to widen the road using his property. 2. If, as stated by the petitioner, he has not surrendered any portion of his property or no portion of the W.P.(C) No.38276/2010 : 2 : property has been acquired, the respondents cannot dispossess the petitioner or use any portion of his property for widening the road. This position is so clarified. 3. It is further made clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of the respondents in acquiring the property for the purpose of road widening or purchasing the same by mutual negotiation. It is also clarified that this judgment will not prevent the respondents to proceed against the petitioner if he has encroached into any portion of the government property. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks