IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2010 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1931 WA.No. 446 of 2010 -------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.12764/2009 Dated 13/11/2009 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ SREEKUMAR.M.A, MANAKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHERANELLOOR. BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDR (LAND ACQUISITION) VALLARPADOM INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TRANSSHIPMENT TERMINAL PROJECT, ELOOR. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Raman, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A. No. 446 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT P.R.Raman, J. The appellant/petitioner claiming that he has not been paid the entire dues in terms of the rehabilitation package in relation to the acquisition of land for Vallarpadom International Container Transshipment Terminal Project had approached this Court by filing the writ petition. He alleged that he has been denied the benefit of the package and the value of two cents of land at DLPC rates. 2. The learned Single Judge found that as per Ext.P1 the appellant obtained title to a plot of land which is A schedule therein. The B schedule gives him half right over a pathway and half title over that piece. It is the case of the appellant that his family W.A. No.446 of 2010 - 2 - executed the sale deed in respect of the land and gave possession of the same. By accepting the package, thus, he is a beneficiary of the package and by virtue of the sale deed executed in favour of the Government, the Government has become the absolute owner of the property. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was right in holding that the present attempt is only to include an item over which he had undivided interest to press into service the rehabilitation package for claiming more benefit. In the absence of any legal backing, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. We are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. We find no merit in the writ appeal and the same is dismissed. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice P.R.Raman, Judge vns