IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2011 / 17TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 23398 of 2010(Y) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- THE PAPPINISSERI POWER LOOM WEAVER'S INDUSTRIAL (WORKSHOP) CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., NO.8.IND(C) 63, PAPPINISSERI WEST P.O., KANNUR, PIN-670 565 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SMT.I.SHEELA DEVI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE TRANSPORT PROJECT (KSTP) KERALA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM, T.C.47/1795, II FLOOR, RAJADHANI COMPLEX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 002. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KANNUR-670 002. 3. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, THALASSERY, PIN-670101. 4. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, L.A.(NH), KANNUR PIN-670002. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.23398/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE REF.C5-18049/08 DATED 15/12/2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P2 COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 2/4/2008 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P3 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17/6/2010 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P4 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION REF.G.10323/08 DATED 30/6/2010 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P5 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A-1071/06 (I) DATED 13/7/2010 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P6 COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16/8/2010. P7 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.KSTP/KNR-DN/C1-1/04 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P7(A) COPY OF THE AMOUNT AWARDED. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.23398 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act. Earlier, Section 4(1) notification was issued for the purpose of acquisition of the property belonging to the petitioner for the purpose of widening the National Highway. In fact, it was decided to demolish a portion of the building belonging to the petitioner. Thereupon, the petitioner has requested the respondents to take over the whole building. However, without considering the request of the petitioner in its true perspective, Ext.P4 order was passed by the third respondent. Ext.P5 is the consequential order passed by the fourth respondent. It is in the said circumstances that this Writ Petition has been filed challenging Exts.P4 and P5 whereby it was proposed to take over a portion of the building belonging to the petitioner ignoring the demand made by the petitioner to take over the entire building. Subsequent to the institution of this Writ Petition, the petitioner was served with Exts.P7 and P7(a). It is obvious from Exts.P7 and P7(a) that, of late, after considering the request made by the petitioner- W.P.(C) NO.23398/2010 2 society, it was decided to take over the entire building and to dismantle the structure and to compensate the petitioner accordingly. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed in this Writ Petition on behalf of the fourth respondent. A perusal of the same would reveal that the District Level Redressal Committee had held a meeting on 16.8.2010 and decided to acquire the whole building belonging to the petitioner- society in terms of the recommendations of the Executive Engineer of the first respondent. In short, the request made by the petitioner which was initially rejected was subsequently acceded to by the respondents and the present proposal is to acquire the whole building belonging to the petitioner-society and to pay the compensation in accordance with such acquisition. It is thus evident that nothing survives for consideration in this Writ petition as the very request of the petitioner was now, accepted by the respondents. What remains is only the implementation of the decision taken as per Exts.P7 and P7(a). In the said circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to take appropriate action for implementing the decision taken as per Exts.P7 and P7(a) and to award compensation to the petitioner-society, in accordance with law. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.23398/2010 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.23398/2010 4