M. Ramachandran, J.

The petitioners were in possession of 7.60 Ares of land in Re.Sy. No.37 of Block No. 172 of Kollam Village. The property as above is situated adjacent to NH47. Petitioners submit that they had proposed intention for building a shopping complex and though the plan had been submitted to the Corporation in 1993, the project had to be abandoned since they were advised that the Authority had a master plan on their sleeves. The land with a high commercial potential was remaining unproductive.

2. By S.4(1) notification dated 25.5.2000, under Land Acquisition Act a portion of the properties had been earmarked for acquisition and later has been taken over. The petitioner has produced a rough sketch of his holdings as Ext.P1. It shows that entire road frontage had been divested for a public purpose. It is proposed for a bug bay, and the rest of his holding skirts the taken over portion, at its entire length.

3. Petitioners, had no basic objection about such acquisition, but pray that they should have been spared from the probable inconvenience and disuse that are proposed because of such steps. The opportunity to develop the balance of land should not have been totally blocked, by denying him any right of way. In O.P.No. 15164/2001 filed, this Court on 5.7.2002 had directed the respondents, especially the District Collector to look into the grievances as highlighted in the pending representations. It appears that in the discussion, which followed on 1.11.2002, the Kollam Development Authority (KDA), on whose behalf acquisition proceedings had been initiated had indicated that there might not be any possible objections for giving pathway to the petitioners properties, but thereafter they had retraced steps, indicating that a concession as above had not come from them.

4. The petitioners had thereafter made a request for construction of shed. It was rejected by Ext.P5 dated 7.7.2003 by stating that since the Kerala Municipal Building Rules was definite about the requirement of access to a building and since there was no access possible to be claimed, the application could not have been entertained. The matter had been placed before the Government and the Development Authority had addressed a letter to the Government, wherein it had been pointed out that since the land is acquired for a public purpose, being a member of public, petitioners had only right to walk through the bus bay and had no rights further. Since the land was acquired for a bus bay, the authority found it difficult to give land or exclusive pathway. It appears that further deliberations were there in the Chambers of the District Collector and the 1st petitioner at that time indicated that he required a pathway of 12 Ft. in width. Ext.P8 minutes dated 7.1.2004 indicates that the District Collector had required KDA to look into the matter. But by Ext.P9 dated 4.2.2004, application was rejected. The same objection raised by Ext.P5 was highlighted. A fresh application for construction of a temporary shed stands rejected by Ext.P11 on 2.6.2004, pointing out that there is no access to the property.

5. The Writ Petition has been filed pointing out that the Municipal Corporation as also the Kollam Development Authority, who are the 3rd and 4th respondents herein had been unreasonable in dealing with the issue and the blockage to the properties on permanent basis would never have been practiced or even proposed, and the steps are arbitrary. Their right to life ensured under Art.21 of the Constitution are thereby violated.

6. Mr. George Varghese, on behalf of the Petitioners submits that request has not at all been appropriately noticed by the respondents, even. What is really required is not a pathway at all but only an opening. The District Collector was satisfied of the genuineness of the claim and had suggested KDA by Ext.P8 to render a reasonable entry. Because of the adamant approach, the legality of the claims, according to him are to be examined. H