IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 4TH OCTOBER 2010 / 12TH ASWINA 1932 OP(C).No. 17 of 2010() --------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN CA 86/2010 IN LAR.1/2010 of SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): -------------------- K.V.VASUDEVAN NAMBOOTHIRI,S/O.VASUDEVAN NAMBOOTHIRI,AGED 46 YEARS,KAKKATTU MANA, PULAMANTHOLE,PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.M.MADHU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(L.A),GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM,GURUVAYOOR 680101. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,COLLECTORATE, THRISSUR 680001. 3. THE ADMINISTRATOR,GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM,GURUVAYOOR 680101. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SHRI B. JAYASURYA R3 BY ADV. SHRI V.KRISHNA MENON THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON ON 04/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(C) NO.17/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE AWARD DATED 24.9.2006 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER'S MOTHER EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 20.12.2009 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 8.2.2010 IN WP(C) NO.814/2010 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT FILED BY THE CLAIMANTS EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT DATED 17.7.2010 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS ONE AND THREE EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.9.2009 IN LAR 79/2006 EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE CALCULATION STATEMENT PREPARED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE CHEQUE APPLICATION DATED 2.7.2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER EXT.P10 TRUE EXTRACT OF THE ORDER DATED 13.9.2010 IN LAR 1/10 IN CA 86/10 //TRUE COPY// THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.17 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of October, 2010. JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for petitioner, respondent No.3 and learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. Ext.P10, order dated 13.09.2010 on an application for issue of cheque filed by claimant No.5 in L.A.R.No.1 of 2010 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Thrissur is under challenge in this proceeding. It is not disputed that 0.85 ares of land in survey No.112/D of Guruvayoor Village which according to the petitioner originally belonged to his father, was acquired for Guruvayoor Devaswom and in respect of the said acquisition, notice was issued to the petitioner and other legal representatives of the deceased father. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation for the 0.85 ares. But, since according to the Land Acquisition Officer document of title in favour of petitioner and others mentioned extent of the property as 0.63 ares only, compensation payable for the said extent was disbursed and compensation awarded (by the Land Acquisition Officer) for the remaining 0.22 ares was not disbursed to the petitioner and other legal representatives. Alleging that compensation awarded is insufficient petitioner and other legal representatives made request to the Land Acquisition Officer for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, “the Act”). Reference was made. Thereon L.A.R.No.79 of 2006 OP(C)No.17/2010 2 was registered. Reference court awarded enhanced compensation for 0.85 ares and it is not disputed that the enhanced compensation awarded for the entire 0.85 ares was deposited by respondents and withdrawn by the petitioner and other legal representatives without any dispute as to the entitlement of petitioner and other legal representatives to claim enhanced compensation in respect of the entire 0.85 ares. Since Land Acquisition Officer did not release compensation in respect of 0.22 ares as per his award petitioners approached this Court with W.P.(C) No.814 of 2010. This Court as per judgment dated 08.02.2010 noticing the objection of respondents that title over 0.22 ares is not proved directed that the matter may be referred to the reference court under Section 31 of the Act. Accordingly, a reference was made and that is taken on file as L.A.R.No.1 of 2010. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that in L.A.R.No.1 of 2010 relevant record in L.A.R.No.79 of 2006, ie. Ext.P8, calculation statement filed by respondent No.1 was produced. But the learned Sub Judge has vide Ext.P10, order dismissed the application for cheque (for disbursement of the compensation payable for the remaining 0.22 ares) observing that judgment in W.P.(C) No.814 of 2010 directed reference under Section 31 of the Act and hence petitioner can claim the amount only subject to the finding in L.A.R.No.1 of 2010. That order is under challenge. Learned counsel has invited my attention to Exts.P7 and P8 and Division Bench decision of this Court in State of Kerala v. Kuruvila (2005(3) KLT 580). In that decision it was held that if claimant is in possession of excess area than mentioned in the document of title and no notice has been issued to any other OP(C)No.17/2010 3 party, such claimant is entitled to get compensation for the entire area on the strength of possession claimed by him. According to the learned counsel Ext.P10, order is unsustainable. 3. Learned standing counsel for respondent No.3 and learned Government Pleader contended that since this Court has directed a reference and accordingly reference was made and taken on file as L.A.R.No.1 of 2010, application for cheque should wait till decision in L.A.R.No.1 of 2010. 4. True that in the decision relied on by the learned counsel it was held that claimant is entitled to get compensation for the entire extent of property in his possession though document of title does not mention that much extent. Here 0.85 ares is stated be lying within the boundaries mentioned in the document of title and the disputed 0.22 ares lies as a contiguous plot with the rest of property. May be, petitioner has a point in what he says that in the light of the above circumstances rather than the extent stated in the document, boundaries and survey numbers, etc. mentioned in the document has to prevail and hence himself and other legal representatives are entitled to get compensation for the entire 0.85 ares. It is also true that in Ext.P7, judgment in L.A.R.No.79 of 2006 learned Additional Sub Judge has awarded compensation for the entire 0.85 ares as if petitioner and other claimants have title and/or possession over the said 0.85 ares . That award has become final and based on that award respondent No.1 has filed Ext.P8, calculation statement and the OP(C)No.17/2010 4 entire compensation has already been received by petitioner and other claimants. These aspects may support the case set up by petitioner in L.A.R.No.1 of 2010. But so far as that proceeding is pending, application for cheque filed by petitioner is premature and in that view of the matter Ext.P10, order does not call for interference. 5. But, in the light of the above facts and circumstances L.A.R.No.1 of 2010 requires to be disposed of expeditiously since the amount of compensation awarded in respect of the disputed portion (0.22 ares) is still in revenue deposit and is losing interest. In that circumstances learned Sub Judge, Thrissur is directed to dispose of L.A.R.No.1 of 2010 as early as possible. Learned Sub Judge shall consider whether the amount in revenue deposit can be deposited in a nationalised bank in case law permits that course. This Original Petition is closed. But learned Sub Judge, Thrissur is directed to expedite trial and disposal of L.A.R.No.1 of 2010 without waiting for any direction for time bound disposal. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks