IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2010 / 25TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 112 of 2010(L) ----------------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------- 1. RAJAN.N, MULLAYARATHALAKKAL VEEDU, MALAYANKIZHU.P.O, RESIDING AT R.S.BHAVAN, NIRAMANKUZHI, URUTABALLAM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695 501. 2. SINDHU.P.G, W/O.RAJAN.N, DO- DO- BY MR.BLAZE K.JOSE, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SPECIAL THAHASILDAR, OFFICE OF LAND ACQUISITION (NH), KESAVADASAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY MS. N. SUDHA DEVI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R2. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 112/2010 A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 : COPY OF NOTICE U/S 9(3) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT DTD. 3.5.05 ISSUED BY R2. EXT. P2 : COPY OF NOTICE U/S 12(2) DTD. 25.1.06. EXT. P3 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD. 21.8.09 SUBMITTED TO R1. EXT. P4 : COPY OF APPLICATION DTD. 21.8.09 UNDER RTI ACT TO THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR/R2. EXT. P5 : COPY OF ORDER No.LA2-1150/1990 DTD. 12.10.09. EXT. P6 : COPY OF AFFIDAVIT OF ADVOCATE ABILASH, NEYYATTINKARA DTD. 21.5.10. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. // True Copy // P.A. to Judge. smp T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.112 OF 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of June, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioners herein seek to quash Exhibit P5 communication and to issue a direction to the respondents to refer L.A.C.No.76/2005 to the appropriate court for determination of the compensation. The petitioners' properties have been acquired for the purpose of N.H bye-pass. The matter was proceeded with under the relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Exhibit P2 is the copy of the notice issued under Section 12(2) of the Act. An amount of Rs.14,42,321/- was arrived at as compensation. The petitioners have duly submitted their claims for fixing higher land value. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that the amount was received under protest and a written objection requiring the matter to be referred by the District Collector for the determination of the court was also submitted. It is therefore, W.P.(C) No.112/2010 2 submitted that the reason shown in Exhibit P5 that they have not submitted an application for reference cannot be true. 3. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit. It is clear from the counter affidavit also that the claimants accepted the award amount under protest as per D Form Cheque No.T1- 136650 dated 28.02.2006. But, it is the case of the Land Acquisition Officer that the petitioners have not filed any application under Section 18(1)2(a) or 18(1)2(b) of the Land Acquisition Act requiring the matter to be referred to the Land Acquisition Court. 4. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that even a perusal of the relevant facts does not show that a proper application was filed by the petitioners for reference of the case before the Land Acquisition Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Lawyer has filed an affidavit before this Court as Exhibit P6 stating that the petitioners have submitted a statement of reference in his presence before the Land Acquisition authority. W.P.(C) No.112/2010 3 Subsequently, he relinquished their vakalath and according to him, there was proper application for reference in the matter. 6. The question which arises herein is whether an application seeking reference was received by the 2nd respondent. In the light of the dispute raised between the parties, this Court at this stage cannot direct the respondents to refer the matter for decision by the Land Acquisition court. Even though it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the amount was received under protest, according to the 2nd respondent, in the absence of a formal application filed within time, the matter cannot be referred to the Land Acquisition court. 7. The issue therefore will have to be enquired into by the 1st respondent himself to find out whether there was a proper application submitted by the petitioners either in person or through the lawyer seeking reference in the matter. The 1st respondent is, therefore, directed to conduct due enquiry, with notice to the petitioners and after referring the relevant files kept by the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent will W.P.(C) No.112/2010 4 be free to adduce oral evidence also in the matter for taking a decision. Appropriate decision will be taken within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is disposed of as above. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp