IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2008 / 8TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 11628 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. B.SYAM KUMAR, AMMUS HOTEL, KESAVADASAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. G.YOHANNAN, JOJO STRORES, KESAVADASAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. VIJAYA, NEWMAN AUTO ELECTRICAL WORKS, KESAVADASAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. KRISHNA PRASAD, ASHOKA PRESS, KESAVADASAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A), PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTEMENT (SOUTHERN CIRCLE), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. JAMES YOHANNAN, TC 3/90, ANRA-1, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT 7. MORAN MOR BASELIOS CLEEMIS CATHOLICOS, THE MAJOR ARCH BISHOP'S HOUSE, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM W.P.(C)NO.11628/08 REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER K.YOHANNAN, RESIDING AT KOTTAVIALAYIL VEEDU THUVAYOOR SOUTH, KADAMPANAD VILLAGE ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT Additional respondent is impleaded as per order dated 10/7/2008 in I.A.No. 6671/08 BY ADV. SRI.J.HARIKUMAR FOR ADDL.R7 GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.C.NO.11628 OF 2007 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION IN KERALA GAZETTE NO. LA-5-538/2003 DATED 10-11-2004. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF PHTOGRAPH SHOWING THE ACTUAL POSITION OF THE STONE LAID BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PHTOGRAPH SHOWING THE REFIXING OF THE STONE. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS AND OTHERS BEFORE THE HON.CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA DATED 22-8-05 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS AND OTHERS BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 22-2-2007 EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS AND OTHERS BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 22-2-2007 EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS AND OTHERS BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 15-2-2006 EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY KESAVADASAPURAM NSS KARAYOGAM TO THE HON.CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA DATED 26-2-2006 EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY ARCHDIOCESE OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 18-8-05 EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD NOTICE ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS DATED 15-3-2008 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS EXT.R7(A) TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY NO. 157/07/IV DATED 08-03-2007 /True Copy/ PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).No.11628 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT I have heard the submissions of Sri.G.Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.J.Harikumar, learned counsel for the additional 7th respondent and Sri.Basant Balaji, learned Government Pleader for the State and the official respondents. My attention was drawn by Sri.Harikumar to Ext.P1 notification under Section 4(1) and also to Ext.P10 award notice. Sri.Harikumar submitted that the allegation that the alignment has been changed is without any basis since any change in the alignment after the issuance of the notification under section 4(1) should have necessitated variation in the total extent which is being acquired. As per section 4(1) notification and also as per the award, the total extent of land acquired is only 80 square meters. I have no difficulty to accept the above submission of Sri.J.Harikumar. In fact in a connected matter- W.P.(C)No.12066/08, a statement has been filed by the District Survey Superintendent, Thiruvananthapuram pursuant to a common order passed by this court on 10/4/2008 in that writ petition and the two other connected writ petitions. The relevant portion in WPC.No.11628/08 2 paragraph 4 of that statement will be quoted below: “On verification, no variation from the original alignment has been noticed. More over, the owner of the land has already handed over possession and has not raised any objection against the acquisition.” Along with the statement Ext.R1(a) sketch has been produced. I am convinced from the statement and from Ext.R1(a) sketch and also by the submissions addressed by Sri.Harikumar that the allegation of the petitioner that the alignment of the proposed widened road has been changed after Ext.P1 notification is without basis. In fact Sri.Harikumar submitted that the first petitioner B.Syam Kumar and two of the other petitioners have vacated the premises. Sri.G.Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that to his knowledge only Syam Kumar has vacated and not the others. Whatever that be, since I am convinced that allegation of change of alignment after Ext.P1 is not correct, the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No.11628/08 2