NALINI KOLPAD Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is before us aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition. She approached the learned single Judge seeking quashing of Ext. P14 and also for a direction to the respondent-authorities to re-convey an extent of 38498 sq. ft of land in T.S. No. 277/1 of Block 10, Ward 10 of Calicut Corporation to the appellant. Apart from this, several representations, earlier, seems to have been filed before the respondent-authorities seeking for re-conveyance of the above mentioned land. It is also pertinent to mention that in an earlier round of litigation in W.P. (C) No. 21381 of 2005, similar reliefs were sought, which ended in Judgment (Ext. P8). The only direction given in the earlier judgment was to consider her representation, which came to be considered and Ext. P14 is the order turning down her request.

(2.) It is needless to say, once property is acquired in accordance with the procedure contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act for any public purpose, even if such public purpose was not carried on by the authorities or discarded in between, there is no automatic resumption of the land available to the owner of the land. The State can reallocate the property or some other property for public purpose. If at all any consideration of such re-conveyance request arises, there is no procedure as such contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, as a legal right, the appellant cannot knock at the doors of this Court again and again seeking such reliefs. It is also pertinent to note that Ext. P14 came to be ordered in 2008 and the Writ Petition came to be filed in 2012. There is delay and laches on the part of the appellant in approaching the court. Even otherwise, for the reasons stated above, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and accordingly the appeal is dismissed.