N KRISHNAN Vs. DY COLLECTORATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance raised by the petitioners is that all of a sudden they were directed to vacate from the shop rooms in which they are doing business without giving any notice.

(2.) The Standing Counsel appearing for the Trivandrum Development Authority (TRIDA) submits that the statement is not true and all the occupants including tenants were given notice as early as on 20.6.2006, that is to say at least nine months earlier. It is submitted that the only attempt of the petitioners is to protract the proceedings.

(3.) A reading of the averments in the writ petition itself shows that these petitioners were aware of the acquisition proceedings. I do not find any substance or merit in the contention raised by the petitioners. But, considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioners are given time till 5.00 P.M. on 23.03.2007 to vacate the premises. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioners are given time till 5.00 P.M. on 23.03.2007 to remove the articles and vacate the premises.