IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 3RD ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 26387 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHIBU GEORGE, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.GEORGE, NADUKUDI HOUSE, KUROOR, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION, KOTHAMANGALAM. 3. TAHSILDAR, KOTHAMANGALAM. 4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS, SUB DIVISION, KOTHAMANGALAM. 5. RANJITH V.NATH, S/O.VISWANATH, THALAKKATTU HOUSE, KUROOR - KOTHAMANGALAM. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.V.MANU R5 BY ADV. SRI.H.RAMANAN SRI.ALEX N.MATHEW (KOLLAM) SRI.JAMES JOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WPC.26387/09 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.NO.301/04 DATED 2.2.08. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 5.10.07. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF EXT.P2 DATED 5.10.07. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29.8.09 MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.26387 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner and 5th respondent have certain disputes between them and are involved in proceedings before the civil court or the appellate authority under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. So much so, if there is a dispute among them as to the title to the money that comes as compensation on account of acquisition of the land in question, the procedure to be adopted by the competent District Collector is that provided by Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The complaint of the petitioner is that necessary notices have been issued by the Collector to the 5th respondent and not to the petitioner. That, in no way, improves the case of the 5th respondent or creates any embargo for the petitioner to raise his claim before the Collector ultimately. If I were to merely extend the interlocutory order already granted, it will only stultify the land acquisition proceedings. All that needs to be done is for the Collector to WPC.26387/09 Page numbers take up the file and take action, if necessary, so that the requirement of the State to complete the land acquisition proceedings need not be held back. For the aforesaid reasons, it is directed that the District Collector will take up the matter in the light of what is stated above and do the needful in terms of law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Having regard to the rival contentions to title, it appears that if there is any application for enhancement of compensation, either by the petitioner or by the 5th respondent, that will also be construed as application for reference under Section 18 and orders issued accordingly. The writ petition is disposed with the above directions. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.29/9.