IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP.No. 1038 of 2000(W)
1. A.PUSHPAMMA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DY.COLLECTOR (LA)
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.V.G.ARUN
For Respondent :SRI.R.S.KALKURA
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :27/05/2010
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
O.P. No. 1038 of 2000
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 27th day of May, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is in possession of a building in Pattom Village in
Thiruvananthapuram District. The petitioner raised a claim for
kudikidappu in respect of the property of which the 3rd respondent
was the landlord.
2. The matter came up before this Court in C.R.P. No.
1394/1997 and this Court, by Ext. P2 order, remanded the matter.
While the matter was pending before the lower authority pursuant to
such remand, the Government issued a notification for acquisition of a
part of that land. As per Exts.P3 and P4 communications, the
petitioner was informed that the property in her possession was not
included in the acquisition proceedings . But, later, it was found that
a portion of the same was included in the acquisition notification.
Accordingly, the petitioner surrendered possession of that portion
which was notified for acquisition. However, later on, by Ext. P5 the
petitioner was directed to vacate the property and deliver possession.
The petitioner filed Ext. P6 objections. Apprehending demolition of
the petitioner’s building, the petitioner approached this Court by
filing this original petition seeking the following reliefs:
“i) To call for the records leading to the issuance of Ext. P 5 and
quash the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other
writ, direction or order;
ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or
order, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to acquire only the
properties included in the acquisition proceedings .”
3. The Government and the 3rd respondent took the contention
that although only a portion of the building in possession of the
petitioner has been acquired, the 3rd respondent has exercised her
O.P.. No. 1038/2000 -: 2 :-
right under Section 49 of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring the
entire building and that is why the entire building has been acquired
and sought to be demolished.
4. Originally, the original petition was disposed of giving the
petitioner 4 months’ time to vacate. The petitioner filed R.P.No.
227/2005, wherein, taking note of the contention of the petitioner that
subsequently the proceedings before the Land Tribunal ended in
issue of a certificate of purchase , on purchase of kudikidappu by the
petitioner, the situation has changed. The judgment was reviewed
and the original petition was again posted for hearing. It is under the
above circumstances, this original petition comes up for hearing
before me today.
5. The learned Government Pleader has produced the files
relating to the case before me. In the same, I find a certificate of
purchase, whereby, on purchase of kudikidappu, the Special Tahsildar
(Land Reforms), Trivandrum has issued purchase certificate No.
192/2003 as per proceedings in O.A.No. 246/1986. That being so, the
3rd respondent does not have any right in respect of the building any
more and consequently, she cannot exercise rights under Section 49
of the Land Acquisition Act. In the above circumstances, the
petitioner is entitled to the reliefs prayed for. Accordingly, the
original petition is allowed as prayed for.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/