(1.) This writ petition came up for admission on 26/05/2006. This Court did not admit the writ petition but directed the Government Pleader and Standing Counsel for Trivandrum Development Authority, (for short, TRIDA) to get instructions. Subsequently one Jacob George Joseph filed a petition for impleading him as the additional 5th respondent. That petition was allowed. The Secretary of TRIDA has filed a counter affidavit. The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Thiruvananthapuram, produced a copy of the site plan prepared for acquisition of disputed land. Sri Jacob George also filed a counter affidavit. Learned Government Pleader submitted that he has received instructions in the matter from the Special Tahsildar (L. A.). So the writ petition is heard and disposed of at the admission stage itself without issuing notice to respondents 3 and 4.
(2.) The material averments in the writ petition are as follows: Petitioner is a tenant of the building bearing Door No. T. C. 25/2525 situated in Sy. No. 1322/2 of Vanchiyoor Village owned by the additional 5th respondent. Petitioner is conducting a tourist home in the tenanted building. There was a proposal by TRIDA to widen M. G. Road from L. M. S to Aattukulangara and Ext. P1 notification was issued under S.4(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act. For that purpose portions of buildings adjacent to M. G. Road are to be acquired and demolished. About 2 cents of land and 4.70 metres of building occupied by the petitioner alone were required for acquisition. Such an acquisition would not interfere with the tenancy of the petitioner since only a small portion in the ground floor alone will be required and remaining 30 rooms of the tourist home could function without any hindrance. Landlord made an attempt to get the entire building acquired exerting undue influence over Government officials. Petitioner filed WP (C) No. 6666 of 2006 before this Court and this Court by judgment dated 31/03/2006 disposed of the writ petition on the basis of the submission of the Government Pleader that the request of the landlord to acquire the whole building was rejected. At present the width of the road in front of the petitioner's establishment is having 13 metres and the proposal is to acquire the land so as to increase the width of the road to 22 metres to make it fit for a four lane traffic. Two stones were planted by the 4th respondent. The first stone was planted in the north western side at a distance of 5.70 metres from the boundary and the second stone was kept on the south western side at a distance of 7.3 metres from the road whereas as per the original plan, the survey stone at north western side was 4.7 metres away from the road and the survey stones on the south western side at a distance of 5.7 metres (see para 8 of the Writ Petition). Petitioner disputed laying of stones and on verification it was found that the stones were not laid as per the approved scheme and plan. There was allegation of large scale corruption in the acquisition proceedings and officers manipulated records suppressing materials from the public so as to change alignment of the road to meet the wishes of the influential people. As per the original sanctioned plan, the acquisition is to be made in a straight lined manner so as to acquire equal extent from either side. Subsequently one metre has been reduced from the eastern side of the road and one metre has been increased towards the western side. All this was done to cater to the vested interests of certain influential people who have properties on the eastern side of the building occupied by the petitioner. 4th respondent had planted the stone illegally to favour one A. Bency who owns property on the rear side of the building occupied by the petitioner. There is no direct road access to the property owned by Sri A. Bency from M. G. Road but only a small corridor which belongs to the petitioner's landlord. 4th respondent changed the original alignment to enable for an easy access to the property owned by Sri A. Bency. If 4.7 metres of building is acquired petitioner can continue to enjoy the building without much difficulty as a strong beam is in existence at 5 metres from the road, which will support the building. But if the building is demolished to a length of 5.7 metres, then the next beam is at a distance of more than 10 metres which requires the building till 10 metres to be demolished thereby causing loss and hardship to the petitioner. Petitioner filed a petition before the 3rd respondent who directed an officer of TRIDA to conduct an inspection. The said officer examined and realised that the stones were not laid in accordance with the original plan. He removed the stones and laid the stones in the correct places. On the next day, 4th respondent came to the building and removed the stones and placed them where he had originally planted them. Petitioner's building is going to be acquired in a slanting manner and not in a straight line and such a deviation is illegal and mala fide. It is averred that respondents or any officers under them cannot require the demolition of a building in violation of Ext. P1 notification or the approved plan and sketch.
(3.) It was further averred that as per the sanctioned plan, only an extent of 4.7 metres is required to be acquired in front of the petitioner's building. Instead of acquiring 4.7 metres, 4th respondent has demarcated an area having width of 5.7 metres at one side and 7.3 metres on the other side from the petitioner's building. Such slanting acquisition affects the petitioner's building and is not warranted under law. Hence the prayer to quash Ext. P6 notice and also for a direction to respondents 1 to 4 to demarcate and acquire only 4.7 metres from the end of the road to petitioner's building pursuant to Ext. P1 and as sanctioned in the plan and also for a writ of prohibition prohibiting respondents 1 to 4 from acquiring or demolishing the building occupied by the petitioner in excess of 4.7 metres from the road.