IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2008 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 36016 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. SUNNY MARKOSE, QUARTER NO.2, EPF QUARTERS, GANDHI NAGAR, COCHIN-20. 2. RAJU MARKOSE, PALLIVATHUKKAL, MURIYAMANGALAM, MAMALA P.O., PIN 682 305. 3. ALIYAMMA, PALLIVATHUKKAL, MURIYAMANGALAM, MAMALA P.O., PIN 682 305. 4. LILLY, PALLIVATHUKKAL, MURIYAMANGALAM, MAMALA P.O., PIN 682 305. BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS (D) DEPARTMENT KERALA. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 3. SPECIAL THASILDAR (LA), NATIONAL HIGH WAY NO.III, VYTILLA, ERNAKULAM. 4. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGH WAYS, ERNAKULAM. 5. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTER OF SURFACE TRANSPORT, NEW DELHI. R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR.BASANT BALAJI R4 BY ADV.MR.THOMAS ANTONY R5 BY ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL MR.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.36016 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 10th December, 2008 JUDGMENT This Writ Petition pertains to acquisition of lands belonging to the petitioners for the construction of the Tripunithura bye-pass of N.H.49 on various grounds. But it is seen that almost all these grounds have been considered and decided by me in the common judgment which I have passed in W.P.C.No.22772/08 and connected cases on 28.11.2008. In view of that common judgment, it is not possible to grant the prayers in this Writ Petition. At the same time, the petitioners in this case have raised a further grievance that the Land Acquisition Officer while passing award and issuing notice under Section 12(2) (Ext.P4) has not considered the four separate sale deeds under which the petitioners claimed title to the acquired property. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the awarding officer was convinced regarding the title which the petitioners held over the property. It is not clear from the documents produced by the petitioners as to why the Land Acquisition Officer became obliged to think in terms of depositing the amounts under Section 31(2) and drawing a reference under that Section to the Subordinate Judge's Court, Ernakulam. According to the petitioners, W.P.C.No.36016/08 - 2 - the documents which were produced by them before the Land Acquisition Officer are convincing. Since the acquired property takes in only vacant land, the question of apportioning the total compensation will not be difficult, so submits the counsel. The learned Senior Government Pleader submits that if the awarding officer had been convinced regarding the title over the acquired properties and if there was no room for any confusion as to the apportionment of total compensation between the awardees, the awarding officer would not think in terms of depositing the amounts before the Sub Court. 2. Having regard to the rival submissions addressed at the Bar, this Writ Petition will stand disposed of in the following terms: The various grounds against the acquisition including the ground of limitation are repelled. If the third respondent has not yet deposited the compensation amount of Rs.6,94,937/- before the Subordinate Judge's Court, he will consider the question of apportioning the amount amongst the four awardees on the basis of the extent shown in their respective title deeds (if the awarding officer is convinced regarding the title of the acquired properties) and release the compensation amount to the awardees. W.P.C.No.36016/08 - 3 - To enable the third respondent to comply with the above direction, I direct all the petitioners to appear before the third respondent at 11 A.M. on 15th December, 2008(Monday). It is made clear that if the deposit is already made, the above directions will not operate. It is also made clear that if the awarding officer has not been convinced regarding the title which the petitioners are having in respect of the properties, then also, the above directions will not operate. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE