IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 15TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 37131 of 2009(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- K.N.BABU, S/O.NARAYANANKUTTY, KALATHIPARAMBIL, MULAVUKADA, KANAYANNUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.JOSHI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, I.C.T.T., VALLARPADAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 37131 OF 2009 (J) ===================== Dated this the 4th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that for the establishment of Vallarpadam Container Terminal, his property having an extent of 16.75 Ares situated in Re.Sy.No.17/4-8 of Mulavukadu Village was acquired by direct purchase. According to the petitioner, he was paid Rs.11,176/- per Are, while similarly situated persons have been given Rs.29,500/- per cent on the strength of Ext.P2. Petitioner submits that his land is identically situated as in the case of the beneficiaries of Ext.P2, and therefore, he too is entitled to b awarded compensation on a par with Ext.P2. It is stated that he has claimed the benefit of Ext.P2 by filing Ext.P3 before the 2nd respondent and that even the representation is unattended. 2. Learned Government Pleader points out that the property of the petitioner was acquired by direct purchase and that Ext.P2 is inapplicable in the case of the petitioner. However, having regard to the fact that the claim of the petitioner still has not been decided by any of the respondents, I do not think it WPC 37131/09 :2 : necessary for this Court to decide on the dispute raised by the learned Government Pleader atleast at this stage, as it is primarily for the respondents to consider the relevance of Ext.P2 Government Order in so far as the case of the petitioner is concerned. Therefore, without expressing anything on the merits of the claim and leaving it entirely open for the 2nd respondent to decide the petitioner's eligibility for the benefit of Ext.P2, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the 2nd respondent shall consider Ext.P3 and take a decision thereof. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 6 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp