The Railway and the Government cannot withdraw from the land acquisition after taking possession, and an award must be passed to determine compensation. The Railway has a duty to lay the road along the route originally proposed for which the land was acquired.

Balanarayana Marar, J.

At the instance of the Southern Railway, Government of Kerala acquired lands in Sy. Nos. 75,76/1 and 459/17 of Pallipad Village for laying an approach road from Haripad Railway Station to the National Highway. Notification under S.4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the act) was issued on 15-5-1985. Consequent to that notification possession of 3 cents of land in Sy. No. 76/1 owned and possessed by one Lalitha Bai and an area of 1 cent in Sy. No. 75 owned and possessed by one Kochunnunni were taken possession by the Government and handed over to the Southern Railway Possession of an area of 31.10 acres in Sy. No. 459/17 owned and possessed by the Travancore Devaswom Board was also taken. While the Railway was making preparations for laying the road, a suit was filed before Munsiff's Court, Haripad as O.S.275/1990 by a worshipper of Karimpalil Koyikkal Kottayam Bhagavathi Kshethram objecting to the laying of the road through.the temple property. The request for a temporary injunction to restrain the Railway from proceeding with the laying of the road ' was resisted by the Railway. No interim injunction was granted by the court.

2. Thereafter another devotee of the temple moved this Court by C.M.P. 774/ 1992 seeking various reliefs including a mandatory direction to the Railway from interfering with and altering the properties belonging to the temple, its land and buildings including the Gopuram. A petition for interim injunction was also moved by C.M.P. 773/1991. Therein request was made for issue of an interim order of injunction restraining the Railway and the Tahsildar, Land Acquisition (Railway) from implementing the proceedings in pursuance to the land acquisition notification including all steps to demolish the Gopuram to the temple. By order dated 8-4-1991 this Court held that the temple property should not be cut into two for the purpose of the approach road. The Railway had since then changed the alignment and the approach road was laid through an alternate' route.

3. Complaining of this action on the part of the Railway 14 residents of Haripad filed O.P. 3791/1992 seeking a declaration that the Railway is bound to construct an approach road connecting the National Highway and Haripad Railway Station through the shortest route possible, and to issue a writ of mandamus to direct them to complete the construction at the earliest and not to incur further expenditure on the proposed alternate approach road. They also sought a direction to respondents 1 and 2 not to fill up the temple pond of karimpalil Koyikkal Kottaram Bhagavathi Temple either wholly or partially. Since then the Southern Railway by letter dated 13-5-1992 informed the Special Tahsildar (LA) for Railway, Alappuzha that the proposed acquisition of additional land for the approach road connecting the National Highway through the Devaswom land need not be proceeded further. In continuation of that letter the Special Tahsildar was further informed by another letter dated 14-5-1992 to make necessary arrangements to handover the land to the concerned parties namely, the Travancore Devaswom Board and the private parties at the earliest. It is thereafter that two of the owners whose properties were acquired and possession taken by the Government moved this Court by O.P. 4055/1993 seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents therein viz. the Special Tahsildar, the Executive Engineer (Construction), Southern Railway, General Manager, Southern Railway and the Union of India represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Railways to pass an award and to pay compensation. Direction is also sought to command respondents to construct the approach road connecting the National Highway and Haripad Railway Station through the properties including the properties of petitioners acquired for that purpose.

4. Inthemeantimesomeofthedevoteesandworshippersofthetemplesentaletter to this Court complaining of the acquisition of a portion of