IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2009 / 23RD POUSHA 1930 WA.No. 2462 of 2007() --------------------- {IN WPC.15026/2007 & R.P.NO.794/2007} .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONERS: -------------------------------------------------- 1. AUGUSTINE KURUVILLA, AGED 62, S/O. P.A.KURUVILLA, CHOOLACKAL HOUSE, THUTHIYOOR ROAD, KAKKANAD, COCHIN-682 037. 2. DEEPA KURUVILLA, S/O. AUGUSTINE KURUVILLA, CHOOLAKKAL HOUSE, THUTHIYOOR ROAD, KAKKANAD, COCHIN-682 037. (2ND PETITIONER IS REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER FIRST PETITIONER AUGUSTINE KURUVILLA). 3. VINEETHA AUGUSTINE, D/O. AUGUSTINE KURUVILLA, CHOOLACKAL HOUSE, THUTHIYOOR ROAD, KAKKANAD, COCHIN-682 037. (3RD PETITIONER IS REP. BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AUGUSTINE KURUVILLA, THE FIRST PETITIONER). BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI SRI.ROY THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. WA.No. 2462 of 2007 :: 2 :: 2. THE COMMISSIONER/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, (LAND REVENUE), OLD BOARD OF REVENUE BUILDINGS, MUSEUM ROAD, TRIVANDRUM. 3. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), COCHIN REFINERIES LTD., VYTTILA, TRIPUNITHURA PO., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. THE SECRETARY TO REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 5. THE SECRETARY, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 6. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. 7. INFO PARK, KERALA INFO PARK, KUSUMAGIRI POST, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-30, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR. R1 TO R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN R7 BY SRI.P.A.AHAMED, SC, INFOPARK THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ALONG WITH WA NO.2552 OF 2007 ON 13/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. KOSHY, Ag.C.J. & V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.A.No.No.2462 & 2552 of 2007 ------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT KOSHY, Ag.C.J. The writ petition was filed challenging mainly the emergency clause in the acquisition proceedings. This was turned down by the learned single Judge. 2. The only prayer pressed in the writ appeals is that on the basis of the directions given by the learned single Judge, the appellants filed a representation. But the appellants were only allotted 5 cents of land. The appellants are aggrieved by the extent of land reallocated to them. In effect, appellants are challenging the orders passed pursuant to the impugned judgment. It is for the appellants to challenge the same, according to law in fresh proceedings and that order cannot be challenged in a writ appeal. Challenge in the writ petition is entirely different. The time spent for the writ appeal will not be considered, for the purpose of computing the delay in filing the objections, and challenging the order passed after the impugned judgment. Writ appeals are disposed of as above. Sd/- (J.B. KOSHY) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy//