IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 16TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 2922 of 2009(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- N.THANKAMANI MANAGING TRUSTEE, ALACKAL MUHOORTHY TEMPLE. MAYYANADU, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.UNNI. K.K. (EZHUMATTOOR) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DISASTER MANAGEMENT(TRP-CELL) DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No.2922 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner claims to be the Managing Trustee of the Alackal Muhoorthy Temple, Myanadu, Kollam. It is stated that the land near the temple has been acquired by the respondents for the rehabilitation of the Tsunami affected people. It is stated that in the land so acquired, the respondents are going to construct a flat complex misusing the Tsunami fund. According to the petitioner, if building is constructed as proposed, that will affect the sanctity of the temple and therefore the petitioner moved Ext.P5 before the District Collector objecting to the proposal and requiring to drop the same. 2. Learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that the temple is a family temple and is separated from other properties by a compound wall of 6 WP(c).No.2922/09 2 feet hight. It is stated that there is a separate road access also and that any construction undertaken in the neighbourhood will not affect the tranquility or sanctity of the temple. It is stated that Ext.P5 representation was received by the District Collector and after an enquiry, on finding that there was no substance in the allegations it has been rejected. According to the Government Pleader the decision has been communicated to the petitioner also. 3. As already noticed, the land in question has been acquired by the respondents. Once the land has been acquired for public purpose it is up to the respondents to decide in what best manner the land should be utilized. If they have chosen to make any construction that cannot be objected, as it is for a public purpose. Even otherwise on the submission made by the Government Pleader it can be see that the objection raised by the petitioner is devoid of any substance. This also is the finding of the District Collector, who conducted the enquiry. In the circumstances I see no WP(c).No.2922/09 3 merit in the writ Petition. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/