IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2009 / 3RD ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 14922 of 2009(I) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- DEVOTEES ENTERPRISES LTD., 401, ASHTAPADI, POTTAYIL LANE, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, P.VISWAROOPAN. BY ADVS. MR.BRIJESH MOHAN, SMT.RESMI G. NAIR. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM BOARD, GURUVAYUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR. 2. THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM BOARD, GURUVAYUR. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 4. GURUVAYUR MUNICIPALITY, GURUVAYUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. R1 &R2 BY ADV.MR.V.KRISHNA MENON, SC, GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM BOARD R4 BY ADV. MR. K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI, SC, GVR MUNICIPALITY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.14922 of 2009-I = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner appears to be a private entrepreneur with a commercial interest of putting up a complex either for housing or for other commercial venture. It pleads that the Guruvayur Devaswom is proceeding with a proposal for acquisition for a multi-level car parking area and that no physical study has been conducted. The petitioner further states that there are three entry points available to the parking lot and there is no public purpose for any proposed acquisition of the land of the petitioner. As of now, no proceedings have been initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Guruvayur Devaswom has, through its Commissioner, written to the competent authority in the Government making a request for WP(C)14922/09 -: 2 :- acquisition. The Government have to consider it and once it decides to concede to the requisition, proceedings will commence under the LA Act. A person, who could say that he would be affected by the acquisition, would be entitled to challenge that acquisition, if at all, such challenge would then be sustainable in terms of the settled positions of law. In the aforesaid circumstances, the challenge by the petitioner as of now to any proposal for acquisition as stated in the writ petition is premature. The same fails and this writ petition is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the right if any of the petitioner to challenge the acquisition, if permissible in law as and when cause of action arises as noted above. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/290609