IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2008 / 5TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 16390 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. KARTHIAYANI, W/O.KUNHIRAMAN, PUTHIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, POOKKOTHU NADA, P.O.THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. P.V.OMANA, W/O.GOVINDAN, PUTHIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, POOKKOTHU NADA, P.O.THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN PULIKKAL SMT.MANJU RAJAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), THALASSERY. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 3. THE THALIPARAMBA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THALIPARAMBA. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION (D) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1, R2 & R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.BASANT BALAJI R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/06/2008 ALONG WITH WPC NOS. 17448/08 & 17605/08, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) Nos.16390, 17448 & 17605 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 26th June, 2008 JUDGMENT In all these Writ Petitions the petitioner raised a common grievance. Their grievance is that the land acquisition officer did not permit them to adduce evidence nor did hear them during the enquiry under Section 5A. Several grounds have been raised by the petitioners in support of their case. One of the grounds is that as per the rules, it is obligatory that the land acquisition officer permits the parties to examine witnesses and to produce documents so as to convince the land acquisition officer that acquisition of their properties are unnecessary and also to dissuade the land acquisition officer from making recommendations in favour of the acquisition. Though Mr.P.V.Mohanan, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.C.No.17605/08, Mr.Mohan Pulickkal, counsel for the petitioner in W.P.C.No.16390/08 and Mr.Sunil Nair Palakkat, counsel for the petitioner in W.P.C.No.17448/08 have addressed me extensively and some of the submissions of the learned counsel were attractive, I am not inclined at present to decide the grounds raised on their merits. Mr.P.V.Surendranath, Standing Counsel for the Municipality, the requisitioning authority, submitted on the basis of the statement filed W.P.C.No.16390/08 etc. - 2 - by the Municipality that it is not correct to say that the land acquisition officer did not afford opportunity to the petitioners to participate in the enquiry under Section 5A or to adduce evidence. Several chances were given and the petitioners and the petitioners did not avail those chances. Finally the land acquisition officer became obliged to make his recommendations and the Land Revenue Commissioner accepted the recommendations and the declaration under Section 6 has now been passed. The declaration under Section 6 is yet to be challenged and if at all the petitioners have any grievance, it is for them to challenge the declaration. 2. As directed by me the learned Government Pleader has filed a statement wherein it is ultimately stated that the land acquisition officer overruled the objections raised by the petitioners and sent his report to the Land Revenue Commissioner and that the Land Revenue Commissioner after perusing the report of the land acquisition officer and on being convinced of the fact that the objections raised by the petitioners were not tenable facilitated promulgation of declaration under Section 6 on 23.6.2008 as No.LRC-7-25530/08. 3. I am of the view that since declaration under Section 6 is already issued, it is for the petitioner to impugn the said declaration. I W.P.C.No.16390/08 etc. - 3 - dispose of all these Writ Petitions without deciding the merits of the grounds raised. It is open to the petitioners to challenge the declarations under Section 6 on all available grounds including the grounds raised in these Writ Petitions. Considering the permission, there will be a further direction that the petitioners will not be dispossessed of the properties in question for a period of three weeks. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE