IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 12716 of 2009(H)
1. K.V.KUMARAN,S/O.K.V.KUNHIKORAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SMT.K.SUSHEELA NAIR,
... Respondent
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
3. THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR,LAND ACQUISITION,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.K.SREEJITH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :04/06/2009
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, J
...........................................
WP(C).NO. 12716 OF 2009
............................................
DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF JUNE, 2009
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a tenant of the first respondent. It is stated
in paragraph 1 of the writ petition that another room in the same
building is occupied by a political party. According to the
petitioner, the building stands on a piece of 8 cents of land.
Following revised notification and on fixation of alignment, steps
were taken under the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of
different parcels including 0.0002 hectares of land in resurvey
No.116/12 in Udma Village of Hosdurg Taluk in Kasargode.
Alleging that the petitioner is likely to be dispossessed on the
basis of that proceeding, he filed a writ petition challenging the
acquisition on the ground that it is a malafide exercise of the
authority at the instance of the landlord, namely, first
respondent. This court noticed that in terms of the decision of the
Division Bench referred to in Ext.P1, the petitioner, as a tenant,
does not have the right to challenge the acquisition and also that
he is not an interested person in terms of the Land Acquisition
WP(C)12716/2009 2
Act. Accordingly, that writ petition was dismissed as per Ext.P1
judgment on 11.4.2007. The petitioner now states that Ext.P2
has been issued to take over possession and that this will result
in the dispossession of the petitioner from his grocery shop.
Ext.P2 is only an order for taking over of possession of the land
described therein viz, 0.0002 hectares of land as noted above.
The petitioner does not have a case that the acquisition is being
enforced in excess of what is permissible in terms of Ext.P2. He
cannot have such a case because Ext.P2 having been issued on
13.3.2009, for dispossession of the extent shown therein, it
would be premature either for the petitioner or for this court to
assume at this point of time that the petitioner would be
dispossessed of any land in excess of what is shown in Ext.P2.
All other issues stand concluded against the petitioner by the
force of Ext.P1 judgment.
In the result, I find no grounds to interfere. Writ petition
fails and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving open the
right, if any, of the petitioner to agitate before the competent
authority any case of excessive dispossession having regard to
Ext.P2.
THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE
lgk/6/6