IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 23RD OCTOBER 2008 / 1ST KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 21721 of 2008(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.T.VIJAYAN, S/O.THATHI, VELLANGILTHOTTPIL HOUSE, NEAR FACT NAGAR, TRIPUNITHURA. BY ADV. SMT.P.K.SANTHAMMA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, OFFICE OF THE SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD. 2. THASILDAR (LA DIVISION) GENERAL, KANAYANNUR TALUK, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, KOCHI-31. 4. LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI FOR R1-4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,J. ------------------------ W.P.(C)No.21721 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 23rd of October, 2008 JUDGMENT In this writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner challenges Ext.P14 order issued by the Government turning down his request that 12 cents of land belonging to him,which was unauthorisedly taken over by the Government in the proceedings for acquisition for the construction of a bridge in Thekkubhagam Village to be re conveyed to him. 2. Smt.P.K.Santhamma, learned counsel for the petitioner would argue on the basis of Ext.P2 sale deed, sketch and various other documents produced along with the writ petition that the petitioner has been dispossessed of an additional extent of 12 cents covered by Ext.A1 title document without paying any compensation. 3. Sri.Basant Balaji, learned senior Government Pleader, on the basis of the counter affidavit submitted by the 2nd respondent – the land acquisition officer, would submit that the petitioner did not have any objection regarding the measurement WPC.No.21721/2008 2 of the property in his statement filed in response to Section 9(3) notice. He started raising objections only after award was passed and a reference under Section 18 was made at his request. Even in the application seeking reference, the petitioner's complaint was only regarding the particulars given and not regarding the extent. Smt.Santhamma concedes that at the instance of the petitioner a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act has been registered with the local Sub Court and the same is pending enquiry. 4. Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act reads as follows; “18.Reference to Court:-(1). Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the WPC.No.21721/2008 3 compensation among the persons interested.” Section 18(1) quoted above reveals that any objection by a land owner regarding the measurement of the land actually under acquisition comes within the scope of reference under Section 18. When the claims of the petitioner in this case is carefully analysed, it will be seen that the petitioner's claims are based either on his objections regarding the measurement conducted by the land acquisition authorities or regarding the identification of the acquired properties by the land acquisition authorities. Both these objections in my opinion could have been adjudicated within the scope of reference under Section 18(1) which is already made. Since neither in the claim statement submitted by the petitioner before the land acquisition officer in response to the notice under Section 9 (3) nor even in the application for reference under Section 18 (1), objection regarding the identity or extent of the property actually acquired had been taken, it may not be possible for the Subordinate Jude to enquire into the present claim of the petitioner. This court under Article 226 is unable to adjudicate on the present dispute which is essentially a civil dispute between the petitioner and the Government as to the WPC.No.21721/2008 4 nature of the 12 cents of land claimed by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, this property was part of his registered holding, while according to the Government it is puramboke. The above dispute cannot be settled by this court in this jurisdiction. Hence, the reliefs sought for are declined. However, it is made clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioner approaching the regular Civil Court if he believes that he has a genuine and subsisting cause of action. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE. dpk