IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2010 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 21218 of 2010(B) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M.C.ANIAMMA, AGED 56 YEARS, D/O.CHACKO, PADINJARE MUTHOOTTIL HOUSE, AYARKUNNAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.NOBLE MATHEW. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ETTUMANOOR. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, KOTTAYAM TALUK. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. AYARKUNNAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, AYARKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM TALUK. 7. LISSAMMA KUNDATHEL, PANCHAYAT PRESIDENT, AYARKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM TALUK, PIN – 686 564. W.P.(C). NO.21218/2010-B: 8. PERUMANA GOPINATHAN NAIR, PUNNATHARA EAST P.O., CONVEENOR, BRICKS COMMITTEE, PIN – 686 631. 9. JOSHI, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. PHILIP, PADINJARE MUTHOOTTIL, AYARKUNNAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, PIN – 686 564. R1 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA, R6 BY ADVS.SRI.JOMY GEORGE, SRI.M.J.BENNY, SRI.SEBASTIAN THOMAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.21218/2010-B: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AYARKUNNAM DTD. 02/07/2010 EVIDENCING THE FACTUM OF OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION OF 16 ARES OF LAND AT AYARKUNNAM VILLAGE IN KOTTAYAM TALUK, BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH REFERRED TO IN W.P.(C). EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON 03/07/2010 BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS NOS. 3 TO 6. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.21218 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T The main prayer in this writ petition is for an order restraining respondents 4 and 5 from taking forceful possession of the petitioner's land except by the due process of law. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the second respondent wherein it is stated that the land belonging to the petitioner is proposed to be acquired for the purpose of an approach road for a bridge across Meenachill river. It is stated that the alignment was approved by the Chief Engineer, Roads and Bridges, Thiruvananthapuram, after inspecting the site and after considering the various technical aspects. It is also stated that the proposal is to have a straight approach road to the Bridge. 3. From the counter affidavit, it is evident that the proposal to acquire the petitioner's land has not yet been translated into action. The respondents have only demarcated the portion of the land which is sought to be acquired. The petitioner cannot therefore have any apprehension that he will be forcefully evicted. In such circumstances, the writ petition is closed with the observation that the W.P.(C) No.21218 of 2010 2 land belonging to the petitioner shall be acquired only after complying with the procedure prescribed by law. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.