IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1836 of 2008()
1. SHRI.UJJAYINI MAHAKALI AMMAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DEVELOPMENT
... Respondent
2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE,
3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.AYYAPPAN SANKAR
For Respondent :SRI.K.A.JALEEL, SC., TRIDA
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :09/12/2008
O R D E R
H.L.Dattu,C.J. & A.K.Basheer,J.
------------------------------------------
W.A.No.1836 of 2008
-------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 9th December, 2008
JUDGMENT
H.L.Dattu,C.J.
Appellant-petitioner is the Trustee of a temple – Shri Ujjayini
Mahakali Amman Devasthanam. In the writ petition filed, the Trustee had
called in question the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents.
(2) The acquisition was made for the purpose of widening of
the road.
(3) The State Government, in order to provide alternate land to
the temple, had issued Exhibit P9 notification. In that, had directed the
Trivandrum Development Authority (“TRIDA” for short) to acquire 1.81
cents of land from the adjoining property lying in the backside of the temple,
in lieu of the land acquired from the temple property.
(4) Aggrieved by the said Exhibit P9 orders/notification, the
contesting respondent/owner of the land, was before this Court in W.P.(C).
No.12388 of 2008. This Court had disposed of the writ petition, by order
dated 9th April, 2008. In that, the learned Single Judge, without interfering
with Exhibit P9 order passed by the State Government, had only directed the
State Government and its authorities to consider Exhibit P6 representation
filed by the owner of the land.
W.A.No.1836 of 2008 – 2 –
(5) After disposal of the writ petition, there was a meeting held
on 11.6.2008, which was presided over by the Honourable Minister for Law
and also other authorities, including the Chairman of TRIDA, the District
Collector, Secretary of TRIDA, the appellant herein, etc. In the said meeting,
it was resolved, that, for the purpose of providing alternate land to the temple,
only 0.63 cents may be acquired from the adjoining property in lieu of 1.81
cents of land and to give compensation to the remaining portion of the land
acquired from the temple.
(6) The petitioner-Trustee, in the writ petition filed, had sought
for a direction to the respondents to implement Exhibit P9 order and also to
direct the respondents to acquire and provide sufficient land from Survey
No.1318/P of Vanchiyoor Village lying adjacent on the western side of the
premises of the temple.
(7) The learned Single Judge, in view of the resolution passed
in the presence of the petitioner, dated 11.6.2008, has rejected the writ
petition. That is how the petitioner is before us in this appeal.
(8) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would
submit, that, in the meeting held on 11.6.2008, the Trustee of the temple had
demanded one cent of property in lieu of 1.81 cents acquired from the temple
for the development of the road.
(9) After a discussion, the authorities have decided to acquire
only 0.63 cents of land from the adjoining property belonging to the
W.A.No.1836 of 2008 – 3 –
additional 4th respondent so as to provide alternate land to the temple in lieu
of 1.81 cents of land acquired from the temple and to give compensation to
the remaining portion of the land acquired from the temple. Having accepted
the resolution dated 11.6.2008, it is not open to the appellant-petitioner, now,
to come before this Court and contend, that, for the shifting of the temple at
least one cent of land requires to be acquired from the property in Survey
No.1318/P of Vanchiyoor Village.
(10) After carefully considering the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the opinion, that, the learned
Single Judge was justified in relying upon the resolution passed on 11.6.2008
and to dispose of the writ petition. We do not see any merit in the Writ
Appeal filed by the appellant. Therefore, the Writ Appeal requires to be
rejected and it is rejected.
Ordered accordingly.
H.L.Dattu
Chief Justice
A.K.Basheer
vku/- Judge