IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 21310 of 2008(J)
1. R.HARIDASAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
3. THE DIRECTOR OF VIGILANCE AND
4. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :15/07/2008
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J
-------------------
W.P.(C).21310/2008
--------------------
Dated this the 15th day of July, 2008
JUDGMENT
Petitioner while working as Special Tahsildar, Land
Acquisition-I, Kollam, was called upon to take a decision
on an option exercised by a land owner, under Section 49
(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring the entire
building, in circumstances where a portion of the building
was the subject matter of acquisition. The direction
issued by this Court under Ext.P7 judgment was taken
note of and apparently, the Special Tahsildar decided that
the action taken by the land owner will have to be
accepted and prepared a detailed valuation statement,
which was accepted by the District Collector. Building
was tenanted. The tenants of the building alleged that
the acquisition of the building as a whole was pursuant to
a criminal conspiracy between the official and the owner
of the building. Ext.P1 crime was registered and this is
pending investigation. Taking note of the registration of
crime, petitioner was placed under suspension as per
Ext.P2 order dated 28.12.2007. Petitioner sought for a
W.P.(C).21310/2008
2
revocation of suspension as per Ext.P10 and the same is
pending. Hence the writ petition.
2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Government Pleader.
3. Certain aspects highlighted in Ext.P10 will merit
consideration by the Government. Firstly, since the
acquisition proceedings have been proceeded with, the
impact on the petitioner being reinstated in service, will
have to be looked into by the Government. Secondly,
petitioner could be given a posting elsewhere where he
would not be in a position to interfere with the enquiry.
Thirdly, the detailed valuation statement prepared by
the petitioner was ultimately approved by the District
Collector also.
4. In the circumstances, writ petition is disposed of
directing the first respondent to pass orders on Ext.P10,
taking note of the observations made above, within a
W.P.(C).21310/2008
3
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment.
V.GIRI,
Judge
mrcs