IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2010 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 1676 of 2010(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.M.K.PREMNATH, SANTHA BAKERY AND STORES, TC 28/177, M.G.ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), ADDITIONAL LA UNIT, CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2010, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 1677 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) Nos. 1676 and 1677 of 2010 H ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 12 th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T In these writ petitions, the issue raised is common and, therefore, the cases are heard and are disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience, I refer the Exhibits in WP(C) No.1676/2010. 2. 0.42 Ares of land in Survey No.1362/A of Vanchiyoor village was acquired for the purpose of road development work on a requisition made by the TRIDA. In the said plot of land, there existed a building, a portion of which fell within the acquired portion. However, the landlord exercised option under Section 49 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act and, therefore, the unacquired portion of the building also was valued and compensation was determined. 3. Subsequently, the tenants purchased the unacquired portion of the building. Thereafter, they approached this Court and filed W.P.(C) No.2828/2006. During the pendency of the writ petition, building in the acquired portion was demolished and WPC.1676&1677/2010 : 2 : possession of the area was also taken over. Subsequently, the writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P5 judgment. Taking note of the entire facts, this Court directed the respondents to exclude the compensation fixed for that portion of the building which falls completely outside the area of acquisition and deduct the same from the compensation awarded. It was further directed that the area so excluded will also be excluded from the acquisition proceedings. 4. Subsequently, the 3 rd respondent issued Ext.P6 notice for taking further action pursuant to Ext.P5 judgment and called upon the petitioners to vacate from the acquired portion of the area. In these writ petitions, the petitioners apprehend that steps are being contemplated for demolition of the portion of the building, which is ordered to be excluded from acquisition in Ext.P5 judgment. It is on that basis, these writ petitions have been filed praying to quash Ext.P6 and not to disburse the compensation, which is excluded in Ext.P5. 5. A statement has been filed by the 3 rd respondent. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the statement read as under:- WPC.1676&1677/2010 : 3 : “ 3. It is further submitted that as a part of procedures complying the judgment, the description of building for which valuation considered and reckoned in award have been ascertained once again with the Requisition Authority, TRIDA. On 05-01-2010 the Secretary, TRIDA has furnished the details called for, which show that between tie two units buildings, back unit was not considered for the award and the front unit was valued and included in the award for compensation and a portion of which that fell in the alignment has already been demolished. The remaining portion of this unit has to be demolished according to the Judgment in W.P.(C) No.2828/2006, which are being occupied by the 4 tenants including the petitioners herein. Subsequently, notice was issued to the tenants who are continuing business there, to vacate the building within 7 days. The present writ petition is filed against the above notice. 4. In this context, it is submitted that the land required for widening purpose of road was already been taken and the purpose is satisfied. Notice to vacate the remaining portion of the first unit for which also compensation WPC.1676&1677/2010 : 4 : awarded has been issued to the petitioner, for complying the direction of the Hon'ble Court in judgment in W.P.(C).2828/2006. The entire first unit building was valued and compensation awarded on the basis of application filed under Section 49(1) by the then land owners and they are now not in picture and the land is now said to be purchased by the tenants. As the purpose for which acquisition made has been satisfied, Government have no interest to demolish the remaining portion of the building now possessed by the tenants. The award reckoning the valuation of entire portion of the one unit building was passed for saving the interest of the then land owners under Section 49(1), and that interest is now not in force. It is submitted that the action taken by this respondent is in accordance with the judgment in W.P.(C). 2828/2006 dated 28.03.2008.” 6. From the above, it is, therefore, evident that by virtue of Ext.P5 judgment, that portion of the building, which falls outside the area of the acquisition, is liable to be excluded and the compensation is to be deducted. It is also in evidence that the acquired portion has already been taken over for road widening WPC.1676&1677/2010 : 5 : purpose. 7. In view of this, these writ petitions are disposed of clarifying that no proceedings shall be initiated against the portion of building, which is ordered to be excluded for acquisition by Ext.P5 judgment referred to above and from the compensation awarded and deposited in the reference court, proportionate amount will be deducted. In view of the above and since the acquired land having been already taken over and the building demolished, it is clarified that there arise no question of implementing the notice dated 11-01-2010 issued by the 3 rd respondent requiring the petitioner to vacate the premises. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks