This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs :
A) Declare that the Ext.P1 Award does not authorise the acquisition of any building standing outside the acquired land of .21Ares. and therefore any act of bringing the building standing outside the acquired land with the authority of acquisition is illegal and unsustainable;
B) Issue a writ of Certiorari or such other Writ or order quashing the Ext. P1 Award to the extent of acquiring any building standing outside the acquired land of .21Ares;
C) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or such other Writ or order directing the first respondent not to demolish of the building which is standing outside the acquired land of . 21Ares as per Ext.P1 Award.
The petitioner is the tenant of a building owned by respondents 4 to 6. As per proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act' for short), a portion of the land on which the building is situate has been acquired for the purpose of the 2nd respondent. The landlords have given their consent for acquisition of the entire building. On the basis of which, the entire building has been acquired.
2. According to the counsel for the petitioner, as per Ext.P1 award only about 0.5 cents of land has been acquired. For the purpose, land having an extent of 22 cents as well as a building having an area of 20,000 m2 have been taken possession of. It is the case of the counsel for the petitioner Sri.M.K.Dileep Kumar that Ext.P1 award does not say anything about the request of the landlords and it is not clear whether the request has been accepted or not. Under Section 49 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, permission of the appropriate Government is necessary in such cases. The decision in Saramma Itticheriya v. State of Kerala [2008(1) KLT 6] (F.B.) is relied upon to contend that, acquisition of building alone or the building materials alone is not contemplated by the Act and the entire land also is required to be acquired. In view of the above infirmity, it is contended that Ext.P1 award is liable to be set aside by this Court.
3. Separate counter affidavits have been filed by the 2nd respondent as well as the 1st respondent.
4. According to the Senior Counsel Sri.K.Jaju Babu who appears for the 2nd respondent, the notification under section 4(1) of the Act was issued in this case on 07.06.2011. The same was followed up with Section 6 declaration dated 20.06.2012. The land acquisition proceedings were pursued, invoking the urgency clause under Section 17 of the Act and the land was taken possession of on 10.12.2013.
Thereafter, Ext.P1 award was passed on 03.02.2014.
5. Even before the award was passed, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.4723/2013 challenging the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, the declaration under Section 6, the notice of award issued under Section 9(3) of the Act as well as the consent of the landlords for acquisition of the entire building. On 22.2.2013, an interim order was also granted by this Court against dispossession. However, the said interim order was vacated by Ext.R2(a) order on 08.04.2013.
6. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Munisff's Court, Ernakulam by filing O.S.No.370/2014 on 20.03.2014 seeking appropriate reliefs against forcible dispossession. Ext.R2(b) is the plaint in the said suit. However, the petitioner could not obtain any interim orders. Thereafter, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.8549/2014. The said writ petition was filed after the award was passed. In the said writ petition, Ext.P1 award was produced as Ext.P17. The petitioner had sought for setting aside the award. In the said case, Writ Appeal No.654/2014 was filed challenging the order by which, an interim relief was declined. As per Ext.R2(d), the said Writ Appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
7. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a fresh suit before the Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam as O.S.No.726/2014. The plaint in the said case is Ext.R2(e). In the said suit, as per Ext.P2 interim order, a temporary injunction was obtained by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner withdrew both the writ petitions that were filed earlier. Ext.R2(f) is the judgment by which, W.P.(C).No.4723/2013 has been dismissed as not pressed. As per Ext.R2(g), W.P.(C).No.8549/2014 was withdrawn, since they were pursuing their remedies before the Civil Court.
8. In the above circumstances, appeals filed by the 2nd respondent as well as the State against Ext.P2 order were allowed by the District Court, Ernakulam, vacating the order of interim injunction that was granted. Ext.R2(h) is a copy of the judgment in the said appeals. The injunction was vacated on 08.08.2014. The petitioner had challenged Ext.R2(h) before this Court in W.P.(C).No.1888/2014 under Article No.227 of the Constitution. The said original petition was dismissed by Ext.P3 judgment on 19.8.2014.
9. According to the Senior Counsel, after the dismissal of the various legal proceedings initiated against the construction, the demolition of the building has been progressing steadily and a substantial portion of the building has already been demolished. It is in the above circumstances that, the present writ petition has been field. In view of the previous proceedings initiated for the very same purpose by the petitioner, it is contended that the present writ petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of Court. It is pointed out by the counsel that in the previous proceedings also, the decision in Saramma Itticheriya v. State of Kerala (supra) had been relied upon. The said contentions have all been negatived and the proceedings have become final. Therefore, there is absolutely no justification for permitting the said issues to be re-agitated. The learned Government Pleader who appears for the 1st respondent also endorses the submissions made on behalf of the 2nd respondent.
10. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, I am not satisfied that any interference with the impugned proceedings are called for. I have narrated the details regarding the previous litigation only to drive home the fact that the contentions raised by the petitioner have been agitated not only before this Court in successive writ petitions and writ appeal, but also in the original suits before the Civil Court. The suits are still pending. Substantialy identical reliefs had been claimed in Ext.R2(e) suit, as evident from a comparison of the reliefs therein. Therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable for the very same purpose. The earlier writ petitions filed were either withdrawn or got dismissed as not pressed, without reserving the liberty of the petitioner to approach this Court again.
Therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable and is accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
AV