IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 1803 of 2009(M) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.J.SEBASTIAN, S/O.JOSEPH AGED 55 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, PANDARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MULAVUKAD P.O. BY ADVS. MR.N.C.JOSEPH, MRS.VINOD BHAT. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KAKKANAD.P.O., 3. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (ICTT) VALLARPADAM, ELOOR P.O. R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR. M.P. SREEKRISHNAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/11/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.1803/2009-M: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.3199/1976 OF S.R.O., ERNAKULAM. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE SKETCH OF THE PROPERTY IN SY. 109 OF MULAVUKAD VILLAGE OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.2.A: COPY OF THE SKETCH AND MAHAZER OF L.A. OFFICER, ICTT, VALLARPADOM. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE CONSENT STATEMENT DTD. 17/03/2007 IN L.A.C. NO. 205/06 OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE LIST OF NAMES OF LAND OWNERS WHOSE PORTIONS OF FISH POND IS ACQUIRED IN MULAVUKAD. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 20/11/2008 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE NOTICE SENT TO THE PETITIONER BY GOVT. VIDE REF. NO. 2745/2008/NOR/ DTD. 29/10/08. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE NOTICE SENT TO THE PETITIONER BY GOVT. VIDE REF. NO. 29614/CMO/08 DTD. 18/11/08. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DTD. 06/12/08 VIDE G.O.(MS).416/2008/RD. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 02/01/09 MADE BY PETITIONER BEFORE R.2. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE AWARD NOTICE NO. 34/08 DTD. 11/03/08 IN LAC NO.210/06. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE AWARD NOTICE NO.64/08 DTD. 04/08/08 IN L.A.C. 206/06. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT DTD. 17/03/07 BY R.3. IN L.A.C. 205/06. EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(MS).NO.280/2009/RD DTD. 18/07/2009. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.1803 OF 2009 & I.A.No.10355 OF 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ An item of land belonging to the petitioner was acquired . The Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation. Since there was dispute as to title, the Land Acquisition Officer made a reference under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 2. The petitioner sought the relief that the reference under Section 31(2) ought not have been made, since he is the person entitled to compensation. He further sought a direction that he may also be given the benefit of Ext.P8 decision of the Government, which related to nine land acquisition cases. With the passage of time, the Government have modified the decision in Ext.P8 as per Ext.P13, placed on record along with I.A.No.10355/2009. That modification in no manner inures to any person other than the claimants in the nine cases referred to in Ext.P8. Six of the cases were to be considered by the Land Acquisition Officer for revision of compensation, if applications under Section 28A (1) were filed. W.P.(C) No.1803/2009 2 Three others were to go to the Adalat for settlement. The District Collector was authorised, accordingly. 3. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, the reference under Section 31(2) has also been answered, that too, in his favour. This means that the dispute as to title is concluded. But, in so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, there was nobody, who could enter into an agreement with the Government for an acquisition on consent. It was obviously, therefore, that the award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11 of the Act and that has become final. The petitioner had not filed any application under Section 18 for reference. In the aforesaid situation, all that can now result is that the petitioner has to wait for an appropriate opportunity, in accordance with law and seek revision of compensation by recourse to Section 28A(1), if he is able to file such an application based on an appropriate award of court in relation to the same notification. Preserving that right, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE ps