Gireesh vs Special Deputy Collector Land Acquisition National Highway (La Nh), Kazhakootam, Thiruvananthapuram 695582

S. Manikumar, CJ

The appellant/ petitioner, a tenant, who is running a scooter workshop by name ‘Giri Two Wheeler Works and Spare Parts’ in a building situated in a property having an extent of 0.0096 Hectares in Re-survey No. 270/8, Block No.3 of Veiloor Village. Respondent No.4 namely Umadevi is the owner of the said building.

The subject property was notified by the National Highway under Section 3(d) of the National Highways Act. He has filed a representation before the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition National Highway (LA NH), Thiruvananthapuram, respondent No.1, requesting to keep in abeyance the eviction process.

Before the writ court, appellant/petitioner has sought for a direction to the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition National Highway (LA NH), Thiruvananthapuram, respondent No.1, to consider and dispose of Exhibit P4 within a time frame.

Taking note of Exhibit P3 judgment dated 08.06.2022 rendered by a learned single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 30578 of 2021, writ court, vide judgment dated 22.09.2022 in W.P.(C) No. 30093 of 2022, ordered thus:

“xxx

After making the above observation, this Court had disposed of the writ petition permitting the petitioner to approach the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA), if he has any subsisting grievance. The present writ petition is filed stating that the petitioner has preferred Ext.P4 before the competent authority and the steps for evicting the petitioner may be kept in abeyance till the representation is disposed of. 3. This Court had already rejected the prayer of the petitioner to remain in possession as per Ext.P3 judgment. The very same relief cannot be granted on the ground that a representation is pending before the CALA.

I do not find any merits in the writ petition and the writ petition is dismissed.”

Being aggrieved, instant appeal is filed on the grounds inter alia that since the appellant being a tenant of the subject property acquired for the formation of a National Highway and also having undertaken to repair 15 vehicles, writ court ought to have granted the relief sought for.

Earlier, when the appellant/petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 30578 of 2021, taking note of the pendency of the said writ petition and also the grievances expressed, writ court declined to grant time to vacate the premises and accordingly, writ petition was disposed of, permitting him to approach the competent authority for Land Acquisition (CALA), if he has any subsisting grievance.

Even though Smt. Parvathy, learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the appellant on record, prayed for interference to the impugned judgment, she confined her arguments seeking 15 days’ time for the appellant to vacate the premises.

Per contra, Smt. Bincy appearing for the Project Director, Land Acquisition National Highway (LANH), Thiruvananthapuram, respondent No.3, submitted that sufficient time has already been granted and therefore, no indulgence be shown.

However, taking note of the fact that some vehicles are remaining in the building in a dismantled condition, in order to facilitate the removal of the entire vehicles and the parts, the appellant is given 15 days’ time from today, to hand over vacant possession of the subject property.

However, we make it clear that if the appellant fails to comply with the above direction within the stipulated time, this Court will be constrained to initiate suo motu proceedings under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

This appeal is disposed of as above.