SHAJ Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners in both these cases are the same persons. First, I am dealing with O.P.No. 10420 of 1997. In this case, petitioners seek a direction commanding respondents 1 and 2 to refrain from acting on Ext. P1 representation and also from demolishing any portion of the building bearing T.C. No. 28/2222 in the Pazhavangadi - Over bridge Road in excess of the alignment proposed for the purpose of acquisition proceedings following notification No.L.A2/151/97 dated 17.4.1997 issued by the first respondent. They also seek a declaration that S.49 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 cannot be invoked in respect of a portion of the building which is notified to be acquired for public purpose of development of road and allied purposes. The first respondent is the Collector under the Land Acquisition Act. The Second respondent is the Asst. Engineer, PWD., City Road Section. Ext. P1 is a representation stated to be made by respondents 3 and 4 before the second respondent with a prayer to make arrangements to demolish the remaining portion of the building also. It is not in dispute before me that a portion of the land, where the said building is situated was outside the land notified to be acquired by the first respondent. The building is owned by respondents 3 and 4 and petitioners are the tenants under them, in respect of the said building. It is also not in dispute before me that a portion of the said building falls within the land notified to be acquired as per notification dated 17.4.1997. Thus a portion of the building alone falls within the notified are :

(2.) Petitioners have approached this Court seeking a direction as mentioned above, not to demolish the remaining portion of the building situated in the land which does not form part of the land notified for acquisition. It is contended in the Original Petition that the second respondent has no authority to receive and act upon a request under S.49 of the Land Acquisition Act, because it is the domain of the Collector, concerned. Therefore, Ext. P1 cannot be acted upon. The petitioners are well justified in that regard. The second respondent cannot act upon Ext. P1, unless there is an order from the first respondent Collector.

(3.) So long as the petitioners also seek a direction against respondent No. 1, not to demolish the remaining portion of the building situated in that portion of the land which does not form part of the land notified, the issue has to be examined in depth. Whether the Collector can demolish that part of the building is a matter to be decided.