IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2010 / 17TH ASHADHA 1932 WA.No. 1093 of 2010 ------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.19568/2007 Dated 14/01/2010 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN THE WRIT PETITION ----------------------------------------------------- EMMANUAL MANI, PALACKAL HOUSE, KANJIRAMATTOM POST, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN WRIT PETITION ------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION(GENERAL), KOTTAYAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR, CENTRE FOR CONTINUING EDUCATION, KERALA, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.N.Ravindran, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A.No.1093 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, C.J. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 14th January, 2010 the unsuccessful petitioner in W.P.(C) No.19568 of 2007 preferred the instant writ appeal. 2. The land of the appellant herein was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for the establishment of an educational institution. It appears from the judgment under appeal that an award also was passed on 28.4.2007 under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act and possession of the property was taken on 14.6.2007. 3. In the background of the abovementioned fact, the instant writ petition came to be filed with the prayers as follows: “(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the W.A.No.1093 of 2010 - 2 - respondents to permit the petitioner to cut and remove all the trees in 0.5430 Hectares of property in Sy.No.191/8 Block No.48 of Chengalam East Village, Kottayam Taluk. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 2nd respondent to dispose of Ext.P4 forthwith. (iii) Issue an interim direction directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to cut and remove all the trees in 0.5430 Hectares of property in Sy.No.191/8 Block No.48 of Chengalam east village, Kottayam Taluk.” 4. It is the case of the appellant that there are number of trees details of which are contained in the judgment under appeal, existing on the piece of land which was the subject matter of acquisition and therefore, the abovementioned writ petition was filed with the prayers extracted above. Copy of the award is filed as Ext.P2 in the writ petition from which it appears that the value of the trees also was taken into consideration while determining the amount of compensation W.A.No.1093 of 2010 - 3 - payable to the appellant herein. The wit petition itself was filed on 22nd June, 2007, that is almost two months after the award. The appellant has no right to take away the standing trees from the land which was the subject matter of acquisition if the State decides to acquire the land along with it. All that the appellant is entitled is to ask for compensation for those trees. The State by making the award proposed to compensate the appellant for the value of the standing trees on the property acquired. If the appellant is aggrieved by the determination of the value of timber, the Land Acquisition Act provides for appropriate procedure by which he can seek re-determination of the value of the timber by resorting to certain procedure under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Instead of availing such procedure, the appellant approached this Court with the prayers which are already extracted. 5. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the appellant is not entitled to seek the remedy such as the one resorted to by the appellant by filing the instant writ petition. W.A.No.1093 of 2010 - 4 - Therefore, the learned Judge rightly declined to grant any relief as sought for by the judgment under appeal and we do not see any reason to interfere with the same. The writ appeal is therefore dismissed at the admission stage. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice P.N.Ravindran, Judge vns