IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2009 / 14TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 12456 of 2009(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. P.K.VALSALAN,S/O RAMUNNY, P.K.HOUSE, VAYANTHODU, MATTANNUR. 2. VENUGOPAL,S/O.RAMUNNY,P.K.HOUSE, VAYANTHODU, MATTANNUR. 3. JAGANNATHAN,S/O.RAMUNNY,P.K.HOUSE, VAYANTHODU, MATTANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,L.A.(N.H.) THALASSERY. 2. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.V.MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WPC.12456/09 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE DECLARATION DATED 18.8.08 ISSUED BY THE MUNICIPAL SECRETARY, MATTANNUR MUNICIPALITY. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 18.8.08 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PAZASSI. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11.8.08 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20.1.2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF AWARD DATED 20.1.2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 20.3.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.12456 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT An item of land with building was subject matter of acquisition. The entire building does not fall within the alignment. Ext.R1(a) was issued by the petitioners essentially wanting the Government to acquire the entire building. Even if this is not disputed by the petitioners, I deem it appropriate to permit the petitioners to keep for themselves the portion that may not be required for the public purpose for which the acquisition is made. The first respondent has also very fairly stated that only a part of the building is required. Accordingly, it is directed that if the petitioners want to retain the remaining portion, they may do so at their risk and without any liability on the respondents for any damage that may be caused during demolition. Adequate precautions will be ensured by the petitioners themselves and they could even undertake the entire demolition under the control of the revenue officials. The writ petition is so ordered. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.5/8.