Mathew James vs State Of Kerala Rep.By Secretary … on 27 August, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 22733 of 2009(J)


1. MATHEW JAMES,CHETTOOR HOUSE,PERINGAZHA,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY SECRETARY TO
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,M.V.I.P.DIVISION

3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LA),M.V.I.P.,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.A.SADASIVAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

 Dated :27/08/2009

 O R D E R
               THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J
                  ...........................................
                 WP(C).NO. 22733                OF 2009
                 ............................................
        DATED THIS THE          27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2009

                               JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking two sets of reliefs. An item

of land was acquired from the petitioner. That was for the

purpose of a water way. The Land Acquisition Court awarded

enhanced compensation on reference. That award is challenged

on the ground that severence compensation and other such

questions have not been considered by the reference court. On

11.8.2009, for reasons stated in the order issued on that day, I

had rejected the relief No.(a) outright, preserving the right of the

petitioner to seek relief by way of Land Acquisition Appeal.

2. The second limb of the grievance is that after the

acquisition and formation of the water way, the portions of the

land of the petitioner, left with him after the acquisition, is not

appropriately secured by the Government, resulting in slipping of

land into the water way. It is also contended that the petitioner is

deprived of a right of passage to the remaining portion. In so far

as these contentions are concerned, the learned Government

Wpc 22733/2009 2

Pleader, on instructions, state that steps were constructed and a

slab was provided. This court cannot sit in judgment on the

rectification measures taken or that are needed to be taken. The

petitioner, if so advised, will make a representation to the

second respondent, who will consider the request of the

petitioner and ensure that the land acquired is demarcated

appropriately and necessary steps are taken to redress any

grievance of the petitioner in relation to the alleged slipping of

land and the requirement for a right of way. If the petitioner

make such a representation on the strength of this judgment,

that will be considered and a decision taken within a period of

one month from now and if any measure is proposed, that will be

carried out within a further period of one month. Writ petition

ordered accordingly, leaving open all other issues.

THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE

lgk/31/8