IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 13TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3365 of 2010(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. V.C.MARY, VADAKKE AYMANAMKUZHI VEEDU, CHITTARIKKAL P.O., KASARGOD DIST. 2. JESSY ELIZABATH MATHEW, VADAKKE AYMANAMKUZHI VEEDU, CHITTARIKKAL P.O., KASARGOD DIST. 3. PRINCY ANCY MATHEW, VADAKKE AYMANAMKUZHI VEEDU, CHITTARIKKAL P.O., KASARGOD DIST. 4. TESSY MARGARET MATHEW, VADAKKE AYMANAMKUZHI VEEDU, CHITTARIKKAL P.O. KASARGOD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- EAST ELERI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, EAST ELERI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, P.O.CHITTARIKKAL, KASARGOD DIST. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.3365 of 2010 (U) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 2nd day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T Challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P7, a notice issued by the respondent Panchayat as early as on 22/04/2009 informing the petitioners that it was proposed to acquire the properties of the petitioners for the construction of a comfort station and a shopping complex. By this notice, the petitioners were asked to communicate objections, if any, to the said proposal. The petitioners say that on receipt of the notice, they submitted Ext.P8 series of replies. It is thereafter that the writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P7 and for a direction to the respondent to refrain from acquiring the properties belonging to them. 2. It cannot be disputed because if the properties belonging to the petitioners are to be acquired, necessarily, it can only be in accordance with the statutory provisions governing the same. Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioners that the properties belonging to them will be annexed on the basis of Ext.P7 notice, cannot be entertained. As far as this writ petition is concerned, WP(C) No.3365/2010 -2- prayer is to quash Ext.P7, which is only a notice and a decision is yet to be taken. 3. Be that as it may, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on receipt of Ext.P7, though they have filed Ext.P8 objections, no decision has been taken by the respondent Panchayat. If that be the factual position, necessarily, the respondent Panchayat should take a decision on Ext.P7 in the light of Ext.P8 objections. This the respondent Panchayat shall do on the production of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of this writ petition before the respondent Panchayat for compliance. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg