IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 28176 of 2010(V) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- K.K.OMANAKUTTAN, KAIPADAPARAMBIL VEEDU, PERINGARAKAZHA, HMT COLONY P.O., KALAMASSERY, PIN-683 503. BY ADVS. SRI.M.RAJASEKHARAN NAYAR, SMT.K.N.RAJANI, SMT.ANILA PETER. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 030. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) FOR COCHIN REFINERY LIMITED, VYTTILA, TRIPUNITHURA, PIN - 682 301. 3. ARIFA, W/O.E.A.JAMAL, ILLICKAL HOUSE, PUTHUPPALLIPURAM KARA, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 033. 4. MUHAMMED, S/O.PAREED, VELLAYKKAMATTAM PEEDIKA, ERUMATHALA P.O., ALUVA, ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 112. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R.DEEPA R3 & R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.C.ELDHO THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.28176/2010 V APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.L.R.(C) 6-21408/08 OF THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER DTD. 22/05/2008. P2: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILYDTD. 22/06/2008. P3: COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 9/10/2009. P4: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 7/12/2009. P5: COPY OF THE AWARD 105/10 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD.27/05/2010. P6: COPY OF THE STATEMENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT RECEIVED ON 11/06/2010. P7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT RECEIVED ON 23/07/2010. P8: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER'S MOTHER DTD. 29/06/2010. P9: COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.5204/2007 EXECUTED BY THE 3RD AND 4TH RESPONDENTS DTD. 18/08/2007. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 28176 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner along with his mother, brothers and sisters owned a parcel of land situated in survey No.207/ 3 of Thrikkakkara North Village, Kanayannoor Taluk, Ernakulam District. The said land was acquired by the second respondent for the purpose of Cochin Refineries Ltd. Ext.P5 award was thereupon passed on 27.5.2010. On the short ground that respondents 3 and 4 also hold lands in the same survey number and the boundaries of the property cannot be identified, the Land Acquisition Officer deposited the award amount in court. This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the decision taken by the Land Acquisition Officer to deposit the award amount in court. It is contended that the petitioner, his mother, brothers and sisters jointly owned the property and that respondents 3 and 4 have no interest in the land acquired and therefore, the second respondent erred in referring the dispute regarding the apportionment of compensation to the court. Relying on Exts.P6 and P7 it is contended that though representations were made on 10.6.2010 and 19.7.2010 to refer the dispute regarding the land value WPC No.28176/2010 2 fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer to the court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, till date orders have not been passed on the said representations. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges Ext.P4 and seeks a direction to the second respondent to disburse the compensation awarded by him to the petitioner, his mother, brothers and sisters named in Ext.P6. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the second respondent to refer the dispute regarding the quantum of compensation to the court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. The petitioner relies on Ext.P9 sale deed to contend that respondents 3 and 4 have no interest over any portion of the lands acquired. It is contended that respondents 3 and 4 who also owned lands in survey No.207/ 3 have assigned their holding in favour of one Mr.Prince and that the land described in Ext.P9 sale deed is not part of the land acquired by the second respondent. The petitioner contends that as the land described in Ext.P9 sale deed has not been acquired, the second respondent erred in holding that in view of his inability to demarcate the property described in Ext.P9, the compensation could not be awarded to the petitioner, his mother, brothers and sisters. WPC No.28176/2010 3 3. Respondents 3 and 4 have entered appearance through counsel. The learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 submitted that they had not received any notice from the Land Acquisition Office and that they have no objection to the compensation amount being paid to the petitioner, if no portion of the land in Ext.P9 has been acquired. 4. From a reading of the writ petition and the materials placed on record, this Court is not in a position to decide whether any portion of the land belonging to respondents 3 and 4, which they have later sold to one Mr.Prince have been acquired. What the award shows is that lands situated in Survey No.207/3 have been acquired. Besides the petitioner, respondents 3 and 4 also owned lands in that survey number. In such circumstances it will not be just or proper for this Court to quash Ext.P5 and to recall the reference made by the second respondent to the Sub Court. As regards the petitioner's claim for enhancement of compensation, it is not in dispute that by Ext.P6 representation the petitioner, his mother, brothers and sisters have sought a reference of the dispute regarding the quantum of compensation under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Ext.P6 representation is dated 10.6.2010. It is one WPC No.28176/2010 4 made within the period of six weeks from the date of the award. In view of the fact that the persons to whom notice under section 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued before Ext.P5 award was passed have made a request for reference of the dispute regarding the quantum of compensation to the Sub Court by submitting a request in that regard within the time frame of six weeks, I am of the opinion that the second respondent should refer the said dispute also to the court for perusal. I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the second respondent to refer the dispute regarding the quantum of compensation raised by the petitioner and others in Exts.P6 and P7 representations to the competent court for disposal along with LAR 30 of 2010 presently pending before the Sub Court, Ernakulam. Necessary steps in that regard shall be taken and the needful done in the matter within one month from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before the second respondent. The Sub Court, Ernakulam shall upon receipt of the reference, try and dispose of the same along with LAR No.30 of 2010 expeditiously and in any event within six months from today. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that after the WPC No.28176/2010 5 writ petition was filed, in view of the order of stay, the second respondent had called back the reference made by him which led to LAR No.30 of 2010. If that be the present state of affairs, the second respondent shall retransmit the reference to the Sub Court with all the connected records forthwith. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps WPC No.28176/2010 6 WPC No.28176/2010 7