IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34272 of 2009(D) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ LATHA JEROME, W/O. JEROME, LOVE DALE HOUSE, THOTTAKKATTUKARA, ALUVA W. VILLAGE. BY ADVS. MR.K.R.VINOD, MR.K.V.ARUN KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR (LA), CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM. 2. SPECIAL THAHASILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION, K.R.L.VYTTILA, TRIPPUNITHURA. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 34272 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner claims that she is entitled to the land value fixed by treating the land acquired by her as dry land or filled up wet land. That is an issue relatable to the quantum of compensation to be paid. The petitioner states that she has made a claim to that effect before the officer exercising the power of the Collector. If the petitioner is not satisfied by the compensation fixed by the Collector, that is a matter for which the petitioner has to seek appropriate reference in terms of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Therefore, I do not find any ground for the writ court to entertain this matter to consider whether the petitioner's land has to be classified as a particular category for the Wpc 34272/2009 2 purpose of determining the compensation. This is all the more so, because the petitioner admits to have purchased land in 2006 and that the land was then a wet land. The question whether the land was converted by filling it up with red soil with due permission etc may be relevant consideration. But the jurisdiction of the reference court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is wide enough to cover such issues. Therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere with this writ petition. The same is dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to make all claims before the Land Acquisition Officer and also to seek reference in accordance with law, as and when the award is passed by the Collector. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/1/12