IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2008 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 37245 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. R.PLACID, S/O.RABENS, AGED 61, EZHUTHUVILA VEEDU(MADHURI),KUREEPUZHA NAGAR, KAVANADU.P.O, KOLLAM. 2. SANTHAKUMARI AMMA, MATTATHU VEEDU, KUREEPUZHA NAGAR, KAVANADU P.O., KOLLAM. 3. SAROJINI AMMA, D/O.NANIYAMMA, MATTATHU VEEDU, KUREPUZHA NAGAR, KAVANADU.P.O, KOLLAM. 4. SATHYPALAN, S/O.NEELAKANTAN, EACHANAZHIKATHU VILAYIL(AATHRIS),KAVANADU.P.O, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.SIJU KAMALASANAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KOLLAM CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, SAKTHIKULANGARA. R1, R3 & R4 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR.BASANT BALAJI R2 BY ADV.MR.C.UNNIKRISHNAN, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.37245 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 17th December, 2008 JUDGMENT Adv.Mr.C.Unnikrishnan, Standing Counsel takes notice on behalf of the 2nd respondent-Corporation. I have heard the submissions of Mr.Siju Kamalasanan, counsel for the petitioners and Mr.C.Unnikrishnan. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Corporation is not ready to pay the market price for their properties which are proposed to be acquired/purchased under the direct purchase scheme for the purposes of the Corporation's dumping yard. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Corporation is willing to pay only the rate which was granted at the time when other portions of their properties were acquired. Standing Counsel for the Corporation submitted that when acquisition is by direct purchase, the price to be paid and received will be a price which is agreeable to the vendor and the vendee. The vendor cannot insist that the vendee should pay the rate demanded by him. 3. I do not propose to go into the merits of the controversy. But since Ext.P6 representation is seen pending before the Secretary of the Corporation, it is only proper that the Secretary of the W.P.C.No.37245/08 - 2 - Corporation calls the petitioners for a discussion regarding Ext.P6 and takes a decision at the earliest. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of issuing the following directions: The 2nd respondent, the Secretary of the Corporation is directed to take up Ext.P6 immediately, call the petitioners for a discussion regarding the issue involved in Ext.P6 and take a decision on Ext.P6 at the earliest and at any rate within one month of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Once decision is taken, the petitioners will be informed of the same. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE