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. 2176 of 2009(H) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- BABU RAJ, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, AGED 55 YEARS, SANTHAMPARAMBU, THUNDATHUMKADAVU, CHERAKKAKAM ROAD, VARAPUZHA P.O. BY ADVS. MR.N.C.JOSEPH, MR.S.VINOD BHAT. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KAKKANAD P.O. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (ICTT), VALLARPADOM, 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.2176/2009-H: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2384/1972 OF S.R.O. ERNAKULAM. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE SKETCH OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY IN MULAVUKAD VILLAGE ALONG WITH MAHAZER. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE LIST OF NAMES OF LAND OWNERS WHOSE PORTIONS OF FISH POND IS ACQUIRED IN MULAVUKAD. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 20/11/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION/ORDER DTD. 06/12/2008 VIDE G.O.(MS). NO.416/2008/RD ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE AWARD NOTICE NO. 34/08 DTD. 11/03/08 IN L.A.C. NO.210/06. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE AWARD NOTICE NO. 64/08 DTD. 04/08/08 IN N.A.C. 206/06. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DTD. 17/03/2007 BY THE R.3. EXT.P.9: 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. 2176 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.P5 decision of the Government, which related to nine land acquisition cases. With the passage of time, the Government have modified the decision in Ext.P5 as per Ext.P9, placed on record along with I.A.No.10354/2009. That modification in no manner inures to any person other than the claimants in the nine cases referred to in Ext.P5. 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. Three others were to go to the Adalat for settlement. The District Collector was authorised, accordingly. W.P.(C) No.2176/2009 2 3. The petitioner appears to have had an inclination to settle the acquisition on consent. But, in the meanwhile, claims were raised against the petitioner on the strength of a purported agreement for sale. This led to the passing of the award and consequential reference under Section 31(2). Obviously, therefore, there is no written agreement between the petitioner and the State regarding the acquisition. He has to therefore stand by the compensation awarded to him by the Land Acquisition Officer. He will not be entitled to the benefit of any rehabilitation package. 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