IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 28TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 27890 of 2008(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ ABDUL KHADER, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.HAMEED, PUTHUKKARA VEEDU, THENGODE KARA, KAKKANAD VILLAGE, COCHIN - 682 030. BY ADV. SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN SMT.PRAISHEEL PRAKASAM SRI.T.PRAVEEN SMT.BEATRICE FERIA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, TRIVANDRUM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, KAKKANAD, COCHIN- 682 030. 3. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION COCHIN REFINERIES, THRIPUNITHURA. BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.D.ANIL KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,J. ------------------------ W.P.(C)No.27890 of 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT The grievance, which the petitioner voices in this writ petition, is that the land acquisition officer while determining the compensation and passing the award has not taken into account the substantial building which was in existence on the acquired property. The stand of the Government is that the building itself was constructed by the petitioner after the property had been notified under Section 4 (1) for acquisition Act and therefore the building cannot be taken into account for compensation. According to the petitioner, the building was already in existence at the time when Section 4(1) notification was issued. I am of the view that, essentially, the dispute is regarding the correct compensation payable to the petitioner for the acquired property. 2. Sri.V.S.Chandrasekharan, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since land value was determined on the basis of consensus, the petitioner did not apply for reference WPC.No.27890/2008 2 under Section 18. According to him, the petitioner has no grievance regarding the land value determined by the awarding officer. 3. Under the above circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner can be permitted to seek a reference under Section 18 regarding the question whether he is entitled for compensation for the building which was admittedly existing at the time of taking over of possession. Dispute is as to when the building was constructed i.e., whether it was constructed prior to section 4 (1) notification or subsequently. This dispute can be settled by the competent land acquisition court. The petitioner is permitted to apply for reference under Section 18 of the question of determining whether the building in question was constructed by him prior to section 4 (1) notification and if yes as to what is the compensation payable for the said building. If reference application is filed by the petitioner within five days from today, the 3rd respondent will consider that application favourably and make a reference to the competent subordinate judges court. The land acquisition officer will be careful in drawing the reference and it should be specified that the WPC.No.27890/2008 3 reference is confined to the question indicated herein above. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE) dpk