IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 30346 of 2010(P)
1. SOBHANA, AGED 60 YEARS, W/O.LATE
... Petitioner
2. JEEVAN.G.LAL, AGED 26 YEARS,
3. SREEDEVI.K, AGED 53 YEARS,
4. RAJASREEP.NAIR, AGED 29 YEARS,
5. JAYESH.P.NAIR, AGED 27 YEARS,
6. VIMALA, AGED 46 YEARS, W/O.VIJAYAKUMAR
7. VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED 48 YEARS,
8. THAMPI, AGED 49 YEARS,
9. VIMALA AGED 45 YEARS, W/O.THAMPI
10. SUDARSHANAN, AGED 42,S/O.KRISHNA
11. SUMA AGED 35, W/O.SUDARSHANAN,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
3. DEPUTY COLLECTOR,(LAND ACQUISITION)
4. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
5. VIZHINJAM INTERNATIONAL SEAPORT LIMITED
6. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
For Petitioner :SRI.D.ROBINSON
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :01/10/2010
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.30346 of 2010
-------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of October, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners who claim to be owners of different parcels
of lands situated in Athiyannoor Village in Neyyattinkara Taluk,
Thiruvananthapuram District, have filed this writ petition challenging
Ext.P5 notification issued under the provisions of section 4(1) read
with section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1898. The document
produced as Ext.P5 actually consists of two different notifications, one
published in the Kerala Gazette (Extra ordinary) dated 19.3.2010
issued by the Joint Commissioner of Land Revenue and the other
published in the Kerala Gazette (Extra ordinary) dated 19.1.2009
issued by the Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition),
Thiruvananthapuram, and they relate to different parcels of land. The
first of the notifications was issued 7 months back and the other was
issued about one year and 9 months back. I am of the opinion that
the petitioners cannot file a writ petition challenging the two separate
notifications, issued at different points of time, by producing the two
documents as a one single document.
2. Further, the challenge to the notification dated
19.1.2009 is highly belated. There is no explanation forthcoming as to
W.P.(C) No.30346 of 2010
2
why till date, the said notification was not challenged. Even with
regard to the notification dated 19.3.2010, the challenge is belated
and there is no explanation for the delay in challenging the said
notification also. That apart, the main submission made by the
learned counsel for the petitioners is that the land value fixed is too
low. That is a matter which the land owners will have to agitate
before the reference court, by making an application under section 18
of the Land Acquisition Act.
In such circumstances, I hold that there is no merit in the
writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
P.N.RAVINDRAN,
Judge.
nj.