IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 36185 of 2010(W)
1. P.M.ABDUL ASHRUF, AGED 44,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR & COMPETENT
3. NASEEMA, AGED 50,
For Petitioner :SMT.R.PADMAKUMARI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :06/12/2010
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
---------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 36185 OF 2010
--------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of December, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is the managing partner of a partnership firm
running a hotel in the premises belonging to the third respondent.
The site of the building was acquired by the National Highway
Authorities for the purpose of the Kodungalloor bye pass. After the
acquisition proceedings were initiated, the petitioner filed Ext.P4
claim petition before the second respondent claiming payment of the
sum of Rs.Seven lakhs as compensation on the ground that he has
invested large amounts in the building situated in the land proposed
to be acquired. He thereafter filed W.P.(C) No. 32089 of 2009 in
this Court. By Ext.P5 judgment delivered on 10.11.2009, a learned
single Judge of this Court directed the second respondent to
consider Ext.P4 and decide it along with other similar claims after
affording an opportunity to all the parties concerned. The petitioner
states that though thereafter Ext.P6 notice was issued calling upon
him to appear on 13.1.2010 and he appeared before the second
respondent, till date, the decision taken on Ext.P4 has not been
communicated to him. It is stated even before the decision on
WPC No.36185/2010 2
Ext.P4 is communicated, steps have been taken to demolish the
building and to evict him from the tenanted premises. In this writ
petition, the petitioner prays for a direction to the second respondent
to communicate the order if any passed on Ext.P4 claim petition and
not to demolish the shop room without giving him an opportunity to
seek appropriate remedies against the third respondent.
2. It is evident from the pleadings and the materials on record
that th petitioner is the tenant of a building, the entirety of which will
be demolished by the respondents for the reason that it is situated in
the land acquired by them for the Kodungaloor bye pass. As a
tenant of the building, the petitioner has no right to claim
compensation. The petitioner’s grievance is that he had invested
large amounts in the restaurant run by him and that unless he is
compensated, he will be put to serious loss. However, in this writ
petition, he only wants the demolition of the building stayed till he is
in a position to initiate appropriate legal proceedings against the third
respondent. The third respondent is not responsible for initiating the
land acquisition proceedings. The land acquisition proceedings were
initiated by the State. In such circumstances, I am not persuaded to
agree with the petitioner that he has any right to move the civil court
claiming damages from the third respondent. If the petitioner has
WPC No.36185/2010 3
effected any improvements to the building or has installed fittings and
fixtures, he can claim only a right to dismantle and remove them.
Faced with that situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that as the demolition of the building has commenced, the
petitioner may be granted a reasonable time to dismantle and
remove the fittings and fixtures. The learned Govt. Pleader and the
learned standing counsel did not oppose the said request.
In such circumstances even while dismissing the writ petition, I
direct respondents 1, 2 and 4 to permit the petitioner to dismantle
and remove the fittings and fixtures in the tenanted premises owned
by the third respondent. The respondents shall give the petitioner
one week’s time from today to dismantle and remove the fittings and
fixtures and to facilitate it, the demolition of the building shall be kept
in abeyance till then.
P.N.RAVINDRAN,
(JUDGE)
vps
WPC No.36185/2010 4
WPC No.36185/2010 5