IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 1055 of 2008(Y)
1. K.PONNAMMA, 72 YEARS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ELSY ALEXANDER,KALLOOTT HOUSE
... Respondent
2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
3. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.SASINDRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :24/10/2008
O R D E R
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,J.
------------------------
R.P. NO.1055/2008 IN
W.P.(C)No.8604 OF 2006
------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of October, 2008
O R D E R
The learned counsel for the review petitioner,
Sri.M.Sasindran, has addressed me very strenuously. He has
placed before me photographs relating to the building in
question. He asserted that the building portion presently occupied
by the review petitioner as a tenant under the writ petitioner has
never been valued and compensation paid to the writ petitioner.
On the basis of the photographs, he argued that the building
occupied by the review petitioner stands as an independent
building.
2. It is not as though the above contention was not
considered by me earlier. Today, as directed by me, the
learned Government Pleader has placed before me copies of the
letter dated 4/4/2006 issued by the Executive Engineer to the
Advocate General and letter No.1884/2008/B1 dated 7/8/2008
issued by the land acquisition officer to the Government Pleader.
R.P..No.1055/2008 2
A careful reading of these letters will show that the contention of
the review petitioner that the building presently under her
occupation is not covered by the award is not sustainable. But,
the contention that the land, the site upon which the building
stands is not covered by the acquisition proceedings is correct.
But, as I had indicated in the judgment, the acquisition was
much prior to the judgment of the Full Bench of this court in
Saramma Itticheriya v. State of Kerala (2008(1) KLT 6) and
that is why the land lady has been able to retain ownership over
the land (situs of the building occupied by the review petitioner)
even when her claim under Section 49 for acquisition of the
building(structure) alone has been upheld. The letters referred to
herein above will form part of the records.
3. Sri.Sasindran, the learned counsel for the review
petitioner requested lastly to extend the time fixed for
compliance with the direction in my judgment till 31/3/2008.
According to Sri.Sasindran, the students of a nearby college owes
substantial amounts to the review petitioner on account of credit
facilities enjoyed by them from the Tea shop. There is no serious
objection from the side of the writ petitioner.
R.P..No.1055/2008 3
Under the above circumstances, even as the Review
Petition is dismissed and my judgment is reiterated, it is directed
that time for complying with the directions in the judgment is
extended till 31/3/2008.
(PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE)
dpk