IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 4739 of 2009(M) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- T.P.DEVARAJ, S/O.PRABHAKARAN, THUNDIPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANJUMMEL, ELOOR. BY ADVS. MR.SIBY MATHEW, MR.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU, MR.B.PREMNATH (E), SMT.LAKSHMI.V. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LAND ACQUISITION), VALLARPADOM INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TRANSSHIPMENT TERMINAL PROJECT, ELOOR. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 3. NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA (NHAI), REP. BY ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR, 29/1298, VYTTILA P.O., ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR. M.P. SREEKRISHNAN, R3 BY ADV. MR.THOMAS ANTONY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/11/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.4739/2009-M: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE G.O.(MS).62/08/RD DTD. 19/03/08. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE G.O.(MS).163/08/RD. DT. 26/05/08. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE G.O.(MS)416/08/RD DT. 06/12/08. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE NOTICE U/S. 9 (3) DT. 22/12/2006 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE NOTICE U/S.9(3) DT. 28/12/2007 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE SALE DEED EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF R.3. DT. 28/01/08. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 4739 OF 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The petitioner had 0.81 Ares of land in Survey No.97/4A-A1- A6Pt of Eloor Village with a residential building. Going by the statement of the 1st respondent, the petitioner had another plot of land with an extent of 07.08 Ares in Survey No.97/5-2 of that Village and there is a Panchayat road passing in between the said two plots. The plot of 0.81 Ares with the building was treated as a residential holding and rehabilitation benefit fixed accordingly. The other parcel was treated separately and benefit of package given. The petitioner attempts to point out that the entire land available is more than two cents, that is, nearly 19 cents and therefore, the petitioner should have been given the benefit of package available to those who lose residence with plots extending beyond five cents. This plea does not stand in view of the clear and uncontroverted statement in paragraph 4 of the 1st respondent's statement that a Panchayat road divides the two plots. For the aforesaid reasons, this Writ Petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE ps