V K SUNDARAN PILLAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has approached this Court challenging Ext.P5 and to direct respondents 2 to 4 not to take any action against him and the 5th respondent based on Ext.P5. Ext.P5 is a communication issued to the petitioner whereby the 3rd respondent required him to remove the structure within the acquired portion of the property. The case of the petitioner is that within the acquired portion of the property, there is no structure and that therefore, the attempt of the respondents is to demolish the structure which is situated outside the acquired property.

(2.) HOWEVER, instructions obtained by the learned Government Pleader is to the effect that on the request of the petitioner himself, the structure in question was valued and that the petitioner was paid a total compensation of Rs.2,49,758/-. According to him, the said amount has been paid to the petitioner vide cheque dated 30.9.2005. It is stated that despite receipt of the value for the structure, petitioner did not remove it before 28.11.2005 as agreed by him and that it was in such circumstances, that Ext.P5 was necessitated.

(3.) IN my view, this is a disputed question of fact which cannot be resolved in a writ petition. Therefore, if at all, the petitioner has a grievance in this regard, it is for him to get such a dispute resolved in appropriate proceedings. Writ petition is dismissed.