IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2010 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 2561 of 2010(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. CHANDRAN NAIR, AGED 70, S/O.KALLARACKAL RAMAN NAIR, KAVANAL, KUZHIKKAD KARA, AMBALAMUGHAL P.O., ERNAKULAM. 2. PANKAJAKSHI AMMA, AGED 68, W/O.CHANDRAN NAIR, KAVANAL, KUZHIKKAD KARA, AMBALAMUGHAL P.O. BY ADV. SMT.K.L.SREEDEVI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM. 2. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), KOCHI REFINERIES LTD., VADAKKEKOTTA, TRIPUNITHURA. 3. M/S.BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., KOCHI OIL REFINERIES LTD., AMBALAMUGHAL, KOCHI REPRESENTED BY DY.GENERAL MANAGER(PROJECTS). ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R3 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R3 SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI FOR R3 SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS FOR R3 SRI.P.GOPINATH FOR R3 SMT.THUSHARA JAMES FOR R3 SRI.JIJO A.V.,ADV.COMMR. R1 & R2 BY SHRI M.P. SREEKRISHNAN, SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX EXT.P1-TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.34436/09 DATED 10.12.2009 EXT.P2-TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS EXT.P3-TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT DATED 5.1.2010 EXT.P4-PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE LIE AND NATURE OF PATHWAY EXT.P5-TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF MEETING EXT.P6-NOTICE OF AWARD ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENTs EXT.P7- DO. EXT.P8- DO. DO. EXT.P9-TRUE COPY OF NOTICE OF EVICTION ISSUED BY R2 EXT.P10-TRUE COPY OF NOTICE OF EVICTION ISSUED BY R2 EXT.P11-TRUE COPY OF DO. DO. // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 2561 of 2010-U - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26th day of May, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioners herein are owners of different items of properties which were notified for acquisition on behalf of M/s. Bharat Petroleum corporation Ltd. The acquisition proceedings are not under challenge in this writ petition. The grievance raised by the petitioners in this writ petition is regarding the proceedings issued by the Special Tahsildar (LA) as per Ext.P3, wherein it was ordered that the properties cannot be included in the category, viz. garden land having access through a public pathway/road. 2. This Court, on the application of the petitioners, appointed an Advocate Commissioner who has filed a detailed report along with a plan and certain photographs. The respondents have filed objections to the report also. 3. Along with I.A. No.6398/2010, the petitioners have produced Exts.P6 to P8 notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act informing the details of the award amount and asking them to appear before the Land Acquisition Officer on 21.5.2010. In respect of Ext.P8 notice, it is mentioned that the award amount would be deposited in court under wpc 2651/2010 2 Section 31(2) of the Act. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that even though documents of title were produced before the Land Acquisition Officer, he was reluctant to act upon them and Section 31 (2) is not attracted, as there is clear title over the properties. 4. It is submitted by the learned Govt. Pleader that as far as the amount covered by Ext.P6 and P7 are concerned, the same can be disbursed to the petitioners concerned and they are also prepared to examine the title deeds in respect of the notice Ext.P8 and if it is satisfied that the title is clear, the said amount also will be disbursed to the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners may be granted a reasonable time to vacate the premises, since they have to find out an alternate accommodation. 6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the third respondent submitted that all other items of properties have been taken possession of by the Company and only the properties owned by the petitioners remain to be taken possession of. The Company has also started executing the project, which fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The first petitioner was present along with his son and what they require is a reasonable time to vacate the premises. With regard to the dispute raised in this writ petition, the petitioners have got a right to approach the Land wpc 2651/2010 3 Acquisition Court for appropriate adjudication by seeking reference. The materials produced herein by the Advocate Commissioner can be relied upon by the petitioners before the Land Acquisition Court. 7. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The parties will appear before the Land Acquisition Officer tomorrow itself and produce the documents of title in respect of the properties covered by the acquisition. Since it is submitted that with regard to Exts.P6 and P7 notices the title is clear, the amount covered by the same can be disbursed to the parties concerned. With respect to Ext.P8 notice also, it is open to the petitioners to produce the documents before the Land Acquisition Officer and learned Government Pleader assures that if the Land Acquisition Officer is satisfied about the title of the property, the said amount can also be disbursed. The Land Acquisition Officer can take possession of the property on disbursement of the amount and will hand over possession to the third respondent. The third respondent will allow sufficient time to the petitioners to vacate the premises. Learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent submitted that time can be granted till 31.5.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioners requested for one week's time. The said request is reasonable. Therefore, the petitioners will vacate the premises wpc 2651/2010 4 within seven days from today. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/