AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.T. Sankaran, J.—Writ Petition is filed for the following reliefs:
i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writs, directions or orders quashing Ext. P5.
ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, directions or orders commanding the 4th respondent to enquire into the petitioner''s Ext.P3 petition and to make a report with regard to the new bridge and road.
iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, directions or orders commanding respondents 2 to 6 to refrain from making any acquisition for the new bridge and road in pursuance to Ext. P5 notification.
iv) Issue such other orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
As per Ext. P5 notification issued under the Land Acquisition Act, lands belonging to the petitioners along with other properties are sought to be acquired for the purpose of construction of a new bridge called ''Thattappillykattupuzha'' bridge. Land acquisition proceedings were initiated earlier. But those proceedings were quashed as per the judgment in W.P.(C) 21716 of 2005.
In this Writ Petition, an interim order was passed on 17.01.2007, which reads as follows:
Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are prepared to surrender two shop rooms on the western side of the building, so that they could retain two shop rooms on the eastern side occupied by the second petitioner John and the fourth petitioner Xavier. He submits that acquisition could be confined in respect of the two shop rooms on the western side and that the two shop rooms on the eastern side could be left out of acquisition.
Government Pleader seeks time to get instruction with regard to the submission made by the counsel for the petitioners. Post after two weeks.
Thereafter on 14.02.2007, another order was passed, which reads as follows:
On the basis of the order dated 17.01.2007 learned Government Pleader, on instruction, submitted that to the extent possible, the suggestions put forward by the petitioners could be considered and accepted. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that let matters be clear so that the petitioners would know where they stand.
Government Pleader seeks time to get specific instruction as to what extent the property belonging to the petitioner could be salvaged and to file a statement clearly stating all the necessary and relevant facts. Post along with W.P.(C) 18503 of 2006 on 14.03.2007.
An affidavit dated 12th March, 2007 sworn to by the Executive Engineer, PWD (Roads Division), Ernakulam is filed in the case wherein it is stated thus:
It is submitted that in respect of two shops on the eastern side of the proposed acquisition, one shop at the extreme side can be exempted from the acquisition. The other shop adjacent to the above shop can be left out not less than 50%.
As per the averments in the affidavit dated 12th March, 2007, the shop room on the extreme eastern side in the possession of John, second petitioner in the Writ Petition, could be exempted from acquisition. As regards the shop in the possession of Xavier, fourth petitioner in the Writ Petition, the affidavit discloses that not less than 50% of the shop room can be left out of acquisition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that if the proposed acquisition is limited upto 130 cms on the western side of the present proposal , the shop room in the possession of the 4th petitioner, Xavier can be salvaged. Learned Government Pleader submits that this matter will be looked into at the time of actual implementation of the work and to the extent possible, the interest of the 4th petitioner would be protected. This submission is recorded and Writ Petition is closed since no further reliefs are sought for by the petitioner.