IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2009 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 30708 of 2009(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. M.MANI, S/O. MADHAVAN PILLAI, MEENA BHAVAN, KUNNUKUZHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. L.KRISHNAMMA, W/O. M.MANI, MEENA BHAVAN, KUNNUKUZHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SUJIN SMT.NITA N.S. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF KERALA, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LAND ACQUISITION), COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-23. ADV. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR,SC, KSRTC FOR R4 MS.ANU SIVARAMAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.30708 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 2nd day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are in possession of 1.57 acres of land, which is being acquired for construction of a KSRTC bus terminal. In this writ petition, the challenge is against acquisition proceedings. 2. Although, several contentions are raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners impugning the validity of the acquisition proceedings, in my view, none of these contentions are now open to the petitioners, in view of the finality, that Ext.P16 judgment dated 24/03/2009 in WP(C) No.15908/2006 filed by them, has attained. A reading of this judgment shows that, after deciding all the issues against the petitioners, the learned Judge finally directed the KSRTC as follows:- “8. The KSRTC Authorities shall consider the request for exemption. If the petitioners submit a request for exemption of a portion of the land, wherein the building situates, the Requisitioning Authority and the Land Acquisition Officer shall conduct a joint inspection and if they find any reason to exempt a portion of the land, they are free to pass appropriate orders within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the authorities find that exemption of any portion of land and building will defeat the purpose of acquisition, the authorities need not exempt any portion of the property, but shall proceed to fix compensation for the property under acquisition WP(C) No.30708/2009 2- and make payment at the earliest.” 3. Although the petitioners had filed Writ Appeal No.1509/2009 against Ext.P16 judgment, they did not succeed in obtaining any favourable order. 4. In pursuance to Ext.P16 judgment and the interim order passed by the Division Bench in the writ appeal, an inspection was conducted, and finally, the 1st respondent passed Ext.P17 order dated 10/09/2009, stating that the land or building belonging to the petitioners cannot be excluded from acquisition, as otherwise, the project itself will be defeated. Going by Ext.P17 order, I am not persuaded to think that the view taken by the 1st respondent is vitiated for any reason. Further, the learned standing counsel for the KSRTC has also made available a communication dated 02/11/2009 he has received from the Chairman and Managing Director of KSRTC, which also shows that they have already taken over possession of the land in question from the Revenue Inspector. In view of all these, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. This writ petition fails, and is accordingly, dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg