JEMINI N V S/O N D VARKEY Vs. STATE OF KERALA REP BY THE SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LAND measuring an extent of 0.0034 Hectares comprised in Re-survey No.32/2-3-1 of Ettumanoor Village owned and possessed by the 6th respondent was acquired for the purpose of widening the M.C Road under Kerala State Transport Project (K.S.T.P). Petitioners 1 and 3 to 5 were tenants of the 6th respondent occupying, respectively, shop rooms bearing Door Nos. VII/493, VII/491, VII/490, VII/492 and another room wherein a shop by name 'Ayillyam Umbrella Mart' is functioning in the building situated in the above acquisition. The above shop rooms forming part of the building were acquired under full valuation. LAND measuring 0.0002 Hectares in Re-survey No.32/2-5 and 0.0003 Hectares owned and possessed respectively by the 7th and 8th respondents, the brothers of the 6th respondent, were also acquired. The second petitioner who conducts a beauty parlour in Door No.VII/494 was the tenant of the 7th respondent. Originally, in notification under Section 4(1) of the LAND Acquisition Act (for short 'the L.A Act') the veranda of the ground floor of the building in question belonging to respondents 6 to 8 alone formed part of the acquisition. Thereupon, the 6th respondent exercised option under Section 49(1) of the L. A. Act requesting for acquisition of the remaining portion of the building belonging to him. The said request of the 6th respondent was accepted and appropriate orders were passed under section 49 of the Act by the Acquisitioning Authority. The other co-owners, who are the brothers of the 6th respondent, thereupon, approached this Court by filing W.P(C) No.30182 of 2008 mainly with the following prayers:-

(2.) THE 3rd respondent therein is the 6th respondent herein and room Nos. 1 to 5 mentioned therein are the shop rooms owned by him. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that petitioners 1,3,5,6 and the father of the 4th petitioner herein, the tenants of the 6th respondent herein, had filed W.P(C) No.32329 of 2008 challenging the option exercised by the 6th respondent and the proposed action of the official respondents therein to accept the option. But, they fairly conceded that the issue involved therein is covered against them by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Saramma Itticheriya v. State of Kerala (2008 (1) KLT 6). Following the Full Bench judgment the said writ petition was dismissed as per Ext.P1 judgment on 18.11.2008 itself.

(3.) PURSUANT to Ext.P13, the petitioners herein were called upon to vacate the premises. Ext.P14 notice dated 1.1.2011 is one such notice issued to the first petitioner. The contention of the petitioners is that the respondents are hastily proceeding to demolish the entire building unmindful of their rights. It is contended that the second respondent had not ventured to decide as to whether the entire building is to be demolished or not. Whether the purpose of acquisition would be served by acquiring what is required under Ext.P15 award and whether the remaining portion could be utilised after keeping it intact, were also not considered. It is in the said circumstances that this writ petition has been filed challenging Exts. P13 and P14 and mainly seeking the following reliefs:-