IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2010 / 8TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 35282 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. PATHROSE VARGHESE @ K.P.VARGHESE, S/O. PATHROSE, AGED 82 YEARS, KUNNATH, PINERMUNDA, PERINGALA P.O., KUMARAPURAM, ALWAYE-683 565, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. ALEYAMMA VARGHESE @ M.ALEY, D/O. MARIAMMA, W/O. K.P.VARGHESE, AGED 78 YEARS, KUNNATH, PINERMUNDA, PERINGALA P.O., KUMARAPURAM, ALWAYE-683 565, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.KRISHNA KUMAR SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE SRI.MANOJ KUMAR MAMALA SMT.RESMITHA R.CHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, MINISTRY OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, SEZ DIVISION, NEW DELHI. 3. THE COMMISSIONER, LAND REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. 5. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A.), KOCHI REFINERIES LTD., TRIPUNITHURA. 6. M/S. INFO PARK, PROJECT OFFICE SDF IT, BUILDING AT INFO PARK, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682 030. 7. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI FOR R2 & 7 SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................... W.P.(C).35282/2009 ....................... Dated this the 28th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT 1. The Land Acquisition proceedings which is sought to be challenged has already been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in its judgment in W.A.2447/2008 rendered on 6.1.2009. A Special Leave Petition filed against the said judgment as S.L.P. (Civil) No.2657/2009 is pending before the Apex Court with an order dated 3.2.2009 to maintain status quo till 13.2.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this order has been extended thereafter. On this basis counsel seeks an order similar to the one passed by the Apex Court. 2. This Court in Abdu Rahiman v. District Collector, Malappuram (2009 (4) KLT 485), it has been held that even when the judgment of a Division Bench is stayed by the Supreme Court, the single Judges of the Court are bound to follow the decision of the Division Bench as it continues to be a binding precedent for them. W.P.(C).35282/09 2 2. In view of the above, this Court is bound by the Division Bench judgment in W.A.2447/2008 and if so, the writ petition cannot be entertained. For that reason, without entering into the merits, the writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs