IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2008 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1930 WA.No. 997 of 2008(E) -------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.2060/2008 Dated 24/03/2008 .................... APPELLANTS / PETITIONERS IN W.P.(C). ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. JANAKEEYA SAMITHI, WALAYAR DAM P.O., PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY CONVENOR N.THANKACHAN, S/O. NARAYANAN, ASWATHY, WALAYAR P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. D.THOMAS, S/O. DAVID, THADATHIL HOUSE, DAM ROAD, WALAYAR P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. FATHIMA MOIDU, W/O. MOIDU, C/O. SADIKKALI, D.NO. 1305, MAFANA HOUSE, -DO-. 4. RAJKUMAR @ KANNAN, S/O. MANI, DOOR NO.1092, A.S.HOUSE, -DO- -DO-. 5. SAKUNTHALA, W/O. RAJKUMAR, -DO- -DO-. 6. UDUMAN, S/O. SAYED MOHAMMED, DOOR NO.1091 D, DAM ROAD, WALAYAR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 7. V.S.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI, S/O. V.G.SREEDHARAN PILLAI, RAHUL NIVAS, -DO-. W.A.No. 997 of 2008(E) :: 2 :: 8. BALKEES, W/O. KUNJAHAMMED, D.NO.1090, -DO- -DO-. 9. RADHA VIJAYAN, W/O. VIJAYAN, D.NO. 1086 D, -DO- -DO-. 10. SUDHEVAN, S/O. KANDANKUTTY, D.NO. 1086 C, -DO- -DO-. 11. DHANUSHKODI, S/O. RAMANKUTTY, RAM VISHNU NIVAS, -DO- -DO-. 12. MUTHUMANICKAM, S/O. RAMASWAMY, D.NO.95, -DO- -DO-. BY ADV. SRI.N.SUKUMARAN SRI.S.SHYAM SRI.N.K.KARNIS RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS IN W.P.(C). ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO TAXES (C) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARAIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR OF PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PALAKKAD. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION (G) II, PALAKKAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No.997 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of June 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.DATTU, C.J. This writ appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.2060/08 dated, 24.3.2008. 2. Appellants before us are the petitioners in W.P.No.2060/08. In the petition filed, they had called in question the correctness of the endorsement/order issued by the District Collector dated, 5.2.2008. 3. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the District Collector has no authority under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act to decide whether the lands in question notified under Section 4(1) of the Act requires to be exempted or not. Therefore, it is stated the endorsement/order passed by the District Collector is one without jurisdiction and without authority of law. 4. The State Government had issued 4(1) notification with an intention to acquire large extents of land for the purpose of construction of an Integrated Cheque Post at Walayar in Block No.32 of Pudussery East Village in Palakkad District through Fast Track Mechanism. 5. Aggrieved by the inclusion of the lands belonging to the writ petitioners, they had approached the Honourable Chief Minister to intervene in the matter and to direct the District Collector to drop the acquisition proceedings in so far as the petitioners lands are concerned. On the request made by the petitioners, the Honourable Chief Minister had directed the District Collector to look into the grievance of the petitioners. 6. After considering the grievance of the petitioners, the District Collector is of the opinion that the lands belonging to the petitioners cannot be dropped from the acquisition proceedings. W.A.No.997 OF 2008 :: 2 :: 7. Under Section 5(2) of the Act persons who are objecting to the inclusion of their lands under notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act can file their objections. After receipt of such objections, the sub section mandates that the District Collector has to consider their objections and prepare a report and submit it to the State Government for its approval and further proceedings under that Act. 8. In the instant case that stage is not yet reached. The District Collector, in our opinion, has only expressed his opinion with regard to the claim made by the petitioners that too in view of the directions issued by the Honourable Chief Minister. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the District Collector has passed an order rejecting the claim of the petitioners which power he does not possess. Therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned order passed by the District Collector is either without jurisdiction or without authority of law. In that view of the matter, in our view, the learned Single Judge was justified in rejecting the writ petition filed by the petitioners. We are in full agreement with the findings and conclusions made by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, while affirming the findings of the learned Single Judge, the writ appeal requires to be rejected and we do so. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE jes