Kerala High Court
Chandrasekharan Nair @ Chandran vs State Of Kerala on 3 January, 2008
Author: K.Padmanabhan Nair
Bench: K.Padmanabhan Nair
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 32353 of 2007(B)
1. CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR @ CHANDRAN,
... Petitioner
2. KRISHNANKUTTY,
3. K.RAVEENDRAN NAIR, S/O. KESAVA PILLAI,
4. BHADRAN,
5. N.R.SREEKANDAN NAIR,
6. KUMARI GIRIJA, D/O. KAMALAMMA,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
3. TRIVANDRUM DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
4. DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LAND ACQUISITION),
5. JAYA, D/O. LEELA DEVI,
For Petitioner :SRI.G.SUDHEER
For Respondent :SRI.K.A.JALEEL, SC., TRIDA
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.PADMANABHAN NAIR
Dated :03/01/2008
O R D E R
K.PADMANABHAN NAIR,J
====================
W.P. (C) No.32353 of 2007
======================
Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2008
JUDGMENT
The tenants of a building which is sought to be acquired are the petitioners. Admittedly, they have no ownership or title over the land or building. According to the petitioners they are running business in the building situated in the property. The 5th respondent is the owner and landlord. He had filed R.C.P.No.11/88 which was allowed and execution petitions pending. According to the petitioners a portion of the land in which the building situated and also portion of the building were acquired for a public purpose. Their further case is that the owner had approached the Land Acquisition Officer and prayed for demolition of the entire building and hence the Land Acquisition Officer is trying to demolish that remaining portion the building which was not acquired.
The learned Government Pleader on instruction submits that the Land Acquisition Officer had no intention to take any excess portion. It is pointed out that in Ext.P2 the petitioners W.P.(C).No.32353/2007 2 were directed to vacate and deliver possession of part of the building which within the alignment area alone. The learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent submits that after passing of the award the tenants trespassed into same portion of the old building which was lying vacant and their apprehension is that the landlord had exercised his powers under Section 49 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act. It is submitted that in this case the landlord not exercised his action under Section 49(1) and only a portion of the building which falls within the alignment area alone will be demolished. It is submitted that the building is old and dilapidated one and in case the unacquired building portion sustains any damage on account of the demolition of the acquired portion the landlord may not be held responsible and the petitioners are not entitle to make any claim against the 5th respondent. It is submitted that 5th respondent had not exerted any influence on the Land Acquisition Officer. Statement made by the landlord is recorded. I do not think it necessary to consider the dispute between the petitioners and 5th respondent in this proceedings. There is no bar for the Land Acquisition W.P.(C).No.32353/2007 3 Officer to demolish the portion of the building which comes within the alignment area and it is made clear that in case any damage occurs to the building at the time of the demolition on account of the dilapidated nature of the entire structure the petitioners are not entitle to make any claim against the landlord. With that observation the writ petition is closed making it clear that the Land Acquisition Officer can take possession of that part of the building portion situated within the alignment area.
K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE dvs