Kunjumon Daniel vs The District Collector on 4 January, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 37672 of 2009(D)


1. KUNJUMON DANIEL, AGED 51 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

3. THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

4. BABU, S/O.KUTTAPPAN NAIR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.  K.SHAJ

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :04/01/2010

 O R D E R
                T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                  W.P.(C). No.37672/2009-D
                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
           Dated this the 4th day of January, 2010

                      J U D G M E N T

Aggrieved by Ext.P3, the petitioner has approached this

Court by filing this writ petition. The petitioner claims

to be in possession and enjoyment of property of 11.70 Ares

of land comprised in Survey No.487/1, Block 18 of Enathu

Village.

2. The property is said to be situated in the south

of Pattazhy-Enathu P.W.D road. The second respondent has

tendered for the execution of a P.W.D contract work for the

construction of a culvert and drainage in the Pattazhy-

Enathu road near Kalamala Masjid to facilitate the free

flow of water from the Northern Ela situated in the north

of Pattazhy-Enathu road.

3. The petitioner had filed W.P.(C).No.11475/2009,

aggrieved by the delay in consideration of his grievances

raised in Ext.P1. Apparently, the grievance raised in the

writ petition was regarding the delay in completion of the

tendered work, namely, that the drainage was not properly

constructed. This Court directed the competent officer to

take a decision in the matter. Ext.P3 is the reply given

to the petitioner pursuant to the direction issued by this

Court in Ext.P2 Judgment. The petitioner is presently

aggrieved by Ext.P3.

W.P.(C). No.37672/2009
-:2:-

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that in Ext.P3, the request of the petitioner that land

acquisition proceedings may be initiated and to pay

compensation, has not been considered at all.

5. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the reply given

as per Ext.P3, it is upto him to move any of the higher

authorities, and with liberty to do so, the writ petition

is dismissed. No costs.

(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)

ms