IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2008 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 15825 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ V.P.KUNHIAYISSU, RESIDING AT `SHAHANAZ MANZIL', C.P.ROAD, CHOKLI AMSOM, MENAPRAM DESOM, P.O.CHOKLI, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.E.A.BIJUMON RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION (C) DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS, KANNUR. 4. DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. SECRETARY, CHOKKLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, CHOKKLI. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.15825 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 28th May, 2008 JUDGMENT Under challenge is Ext.P3 Government Order by which the Government has accorded sanction to the Panchayat for acquiring the properties of the petitioner for establishment of a mini stadium, shopping complex-cum-kalyanamandapam and bus stand. The main ground on which Ext.P3 is impugned is that Ext.P3 amounts to a review of Ext.P2 order issued by the Government on 11.1.1999. But it is seen that the one reason which weighed with the Government for issuing Ext.P2 was that the then financial position of the Panchayat did not justify the acquisition. It is seen from Ext.P3 that as of now the Panchayat has already deposited the estimated amount payable towards land acquisition compensation with the District Collector. In other words, the Government has become convinced that the financial position of the Panchayat has improved. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is indebted heavily to various creditors and the other properties belonging to the petitioner cannot be sold for paying off the amounts since there are tenants in those properties. The present property is the only property which can be utilised for paying off the amounts to the creditors. These are W.P.C.No.15825/08 - 2 - contentions which can be raised by the petitioner when the notification under Section 4(1) is promulgated and the petitioner is invited for the enquiry under Section 5A. I do not find any infirmity about Ext.P3 warranting interference by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The challenge against Ext.P3 will fail and the Writ Petition will stand dismissed. However, it is made clear that this judgment will not foreclose the petitioner from raising all available grounds in the enquiry under Section 5A which will be conducted once notification under Section 4(1) is promulgated. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE