IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2011 / 7TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 7832 of 2011(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ERUMELY GRAMA PANCHAYATH,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,ERUMELI-686509. BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE SMT.P.V.PARVATHI SMT.REENA THOMAS SRI.L.RAM MOHAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD,KOTTAYAM DIVISION,KANJIKKUZHY,KOTTAYAM,REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,PIN:686001. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD,KOTTAYAM DIVISION,KANJIKKUZHY, KOTTAYAM-686001. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,KOTTAYAM-686001. BY ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR, SC, KSHB, TVM R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. SMT. RAJASREE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 17434 of 2011(D) APPENDIX PPETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER D ATED 11.02.2011 (WRONGLY TYPED AS 9.2.2011) SUBMITTED BY THE PANCHAYAT TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. EXT.P1(a) : COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 10.02.2011 EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 1.3.2011 OF THE TAHSILDAR, KANJIRAPPILLY. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION FOR SALE THAT IS PUBLISHED IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 5.3.2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1A : TRUE COPY OF REPLY NOTICE DATED 20.03.2001 OF TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R1B : TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.23/2009/ Hsg. DATED 12.6.2009. EXT.R1C : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.E(SC)T/39/09 DATED 26.08.2009 FROM THE CHIEF ENGINEER TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R1D : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.E(SC)T/39/09 DATED 4.1.2010 FROM THE CHAIRMAN. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 7832 OF 2011 ......................................................................... Dated this the 28th June , 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner Grama Panchayat has preferred this writ petition seeking for a direction to the 3rd respondent to proceed with the land acquisition proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 preferred at the instance of the petitioner forthwith, if necessary, by invoking the emergency clause under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act and to pass an order restraining the respondents from proceeding with the sale of the property covered by Ext. P3. 2. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for the third respondent as well. 3. The undisputed pleadings in the writ petition show that the property in question exclusively belong to the respondents 1 and 2 and involvement of the petitioner Panchayat is only to such extent that the Panchayat wants to have the said property of nearly 7 acres of land for the purpose of construction of W.P.(C) No. 7832 OF 2011 2 houses for the landless/homeless inhabitants of the Panchayat and also for providing the basic needs of the Sabarimala pilgrims, including construction of a KSRTC bus stand at Erumely. It is also the case of the petitioner Panchayat, that, despite offering about 30% more than the market value, the land was refused to be sold by the respondents 1 and 2, who are proceeding with steps to have the property sold in public auction; which made the petitioner to approach this Court seeking to direct the requisitioning authority to have the requisition finalised and to intercept with the sale proceedings proposed by the respondents 1 and 2. 4. After hearing the learned Counsel for both the sides, this Court finds that there is absolutely no right for the petitioner Panchayat to come up with such a prayer and that the respondents 1 and 2 have every right and interest to enjoy or deal with their property in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, either by way of lease or sale or in such other manner. If the petitioner Panchayat is desirous of having the said property, it is open to them to pursue the acquisition W.P.(C) No. 7832 OF 2011 3 proceedings in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. The prayer as now raised in the writ petition is not liable to be entertained, so as to intercept the proposed sale. The writ petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly; however without prejudice to the steps for acquisition, if any, in accordance with law. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk