IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2008 / 19TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 32268 of 2004(N) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. MOHANAN, S/O. CHELLAPPAN ACHARI, KORYAKADU, PADINJATTINKAPARA, PUTHEN VEEDU, MALOOR PATTAZHI, PATHANAPURAM. 2. NAMASSIVAYAM CHETTIAR, SIVA STORES, PATHANAPURAM. 3. BABU MATHEW, SUPER ELECTRONICS, PATHANAPURAM. 4. M.K. BHANUDEVAN NIAR, PARAMESWARATH PUTHEN VEEDU, MANJALLOOR, PATHANAPURAM. 5. SANTHAKUMARI, ANANDA BHAVAN, PATHANAPURAM. 6. IBRAHIM RAWTHER, THEKKEKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, MANKODE P.O., PATHANAPURAM. 7. A. NOORDHEEN, PARAVILAYIL VEEDU, CHELAKODE, PATHANAPURAM. 8. ALEXANDER. G., THUNGUVILA VEEDU, K.M. STORE, PATHANAPURAM. 9. SHAJI. A., PULIMOOTTIL HOUSE, CHELAKKOD, A.B. STORES, PATHANAPURAM. 10. P.K. VASUDEVAN NAIR, TEA SHOP, NEAR PATHANAPURAM MARKET, PATHANAPURAM. 11. M.S. SALIM KHAN, FACT DEALER PATHANAPURAM. 12. AYOOB KHAN. I., PEEDIKAYIL HOUSE, NADUKUNNU, PATHANAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF SMT.P.RESHMA KABIR WPC 32268/04 RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LAND REVENUE DEPARSTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 3. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KOLLAM. 4. PATHANAPURAM PANCHAYAT, PATHANAPURAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.BASANT BALAJI R4 BY ADV. SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX (WPC NO.32268/04) PETITIONERS' EXTS.: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE DECLARATION NO.L.R.(C)-1-15700/92 DATED 21.7.1992 PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE DATED 31.7.1992. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.2.1993 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN CMP NO.3663/93 IN O.P.NO.1948 OF 1993. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED 3.6.1994 FILED BEFORE THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN O.P.NO.4262 OF 1993. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.10.2002 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN O.P.NO.4262/1993. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 11.10.2004. RESPONDENTS EXTS. (4TH RESPONDENT): EXT.R4(a): TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.A1-865/97 DATED 8.7.2004 SUBMITTED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT TO THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT, KOLLAM FOR ACQUIRING 15 CENTS OF LAND IN SY.NO.477/7 IN PATHANAPURAM PANCHAYAT FOR AN ESTIMATED COST OF RS.15,00,000/-. EXT.R4(b): TRUE COPY OF PLAN ALLOCATION FUND FOR ACQUIRING PROPERTY FOR MARKET UNDER THE HEAD 201 AT A COST OF RS.15,00,000/- DATED 7.7.2004 ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT. EXT.R4(c): TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.C1-11885/03 DATED 30.7.2003 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT, KOLLAM TO ALL THE SECRETARIES INCLUDING THE FOURTH RESPONDENT. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.32268 of 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 10th July, 2008 JUDGMENT This Writ Petition has been instituted challenging proceedings for acquisition of properties belonging to some other petitioners on various grounds. The requisitioning authority has filed a detailed counter affidavit and in paragraphs 8 and 9 of that counter affidavit, it is stated as follows: “8. The contentions in paragraph one are vague, unspecific and general in nature. In the light of the preliminary proceedings have been initiated by the District Administration for acquiring the land in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, the notifications will be issued after hearing all the aggrieved parties. Since the land will be acquired afresh, the petitioners are benefited as the cost of the property will be much more than what it was proposed in the earlier notifications. 9. It is humbly submitted that in the light of above facts and circumstances, it is humbly submitted that the Writ Petition (Civil) is infructuous and is also premature as action under Chapter-II are still to be commenced afresh.” W.P.C.No.32268/04 - 2 - The above quoted portions of the counter affidavit will show that it will be necessary for the respondents to initiate the land acquisition proceedings de novo. The present Writ Petition thus become unnecessary and is disposed of without considering the merits of the grounds. It is clarified that the merits of the grounds have not been decided in this Writ Petition. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE