High Court Kerala High Court

The Samastha Kerala Sunni … vs Union Of India on 10 December, 2009

Kerala High Court
The Samastha Kerala Sunni … vs Union Of India on 10 December, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 29223 of 2009(W)


1. THE SAMASTHA KERALA SUNNI YUVAJANA
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. UNION OF INDIA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,

3. THE TAHSILDAR & EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.K.DAMODARAN (SR.)

                For Respondent  :SRI.THOMAS ANTONY

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

 Dated :10/12/2009

 O R D E R
         THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

            W.P.(C).No.29223 of 2009-W

  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

     Dated this the 10th day of December, 2009.

                     JUDGMENT

1.The petitioner challenges a land acquisition

proceedings. Award has been passed and amount has

been deposited.

2.The petitioner states that the petitioner has a

building at Athani Junction and that it is a Juma

Masjid. No objection to the notification was

taken earlier. The acquisition proceedings have

become final. Award has been passed. The courts

will not, therefore, interfere with the

acquisition.

3.The aforesaid position notwithstanding, looking

at the materials placed on record, including the

counter affidavit of the fourth respondent sworn

to by the Manager(Technical) and Project Director

WPC29223/09 -: 2 :-

of National Highway Authority of India along with

Ext.R4(b) sketch, it can be seen that the parcel

in question is well within the alignment for the

development of the junction, including the road.

Land is being acquired from both sides. Even if

there is no acquisition from both sides of the

road, the alignment was fixed by competent

authorities and there is no reason for the court

to interfere with the fixation of alignment which

is essentially a technical matter.

For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition

fails. The same is accordingly dismissed.

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE.

Sha/1612