IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2008 / 24TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 21310 of 2008(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ R.HARIDASAN, (ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR (UNDER SUSPENSION), KUNNATHUR TALUK, SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM DISTRICT) MATHILAKAM, PUNNAKULAM, K.S.PURAM P.O., PIN : 690 544. BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.K.A.BALAN SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SRI.S.A.ANAND RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN: 695 001. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME AND VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN : 695 001. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN : 695 033. 4. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, KOLLAM UNIT, KOLLAM, PIN : 691 001. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.R.SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).21310/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 15th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner while working as Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition-I, Kollam, was called upon to take a decision on an option exercised by a land owner, under Section 49 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring the entire building, in circumstances where a portion of the building was the subject matter of acquisition. The direction issued by this Court under Ext.P7 judgment was taken note of and apparently, the Special Tahsildar decided that the action taken by the land owner will have to be accepted and prepared a detailed valuation statement, which was accepted by the District Collector. Building was tenanted. The tenants of the building alleged that the acquisition of the building as a whole was pursuant to a criminal conspiracy between the official and the owner of the building. Ext.P1 crime was registered and this is pending investigation. Taking note of the registration of crime, petitioner was placed under suspension as per Ext.P2 order dated 28.12.2007. Petitioner sought for a W.P.(C).21310/2008 2 revocation of suspension as per Ext.P10 and the same is pending. Hence the writ petition. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. 3. Certain aspects highlighted in Ext.P10 will merit consideration by the Government. Firstly, since the acquisition proceedings have been proceeded with, the impact on the petitioner being reinstated in service, will have to be looked into by the Government. Secondly, petitioner could be given a posting elsewhere where he would not be in a position to interfere with the enquiry. Thirdly, the detailed valuation statement prepared by the petitioner was ultimately approved by the District Collector also. 4. In the circumstances, writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to pass orders on Ext.P10, taking note of the observations made above, within a W.P.(C).21310/2008 3 period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs