IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 18829 of 2006(N) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- V. SOMASEKHARAN NAIR, KAVALAKKAPACHA BUNGLOW, THEVANNOOR MURI, ELAMAD VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, K.S.T.P.(L.A-II) COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.T.P. KOTTARAKKARA DIVISION, PULAMON P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, (REVENUE RECOVERY), TALUK OFFICE, KOTTARAKKARA. *ADDL.R5 IMPLEADED *R5: SMT.USHA,NISHA BHAVANAM, POLICODE, P.O.VALAKOM, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. * IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R5 IN WPC AS PER ORDER DATED 4/8/06 IN IA NO.10111/08. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.NOBLE MATHEW ADDL.R5 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS SRI.K.P.PRATHEEP ROY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.18829/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 25/6/2005. P2 COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 28/12/2004. P3 COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DATED 23/12/2004 . P4 COPY OF THE DRAFT OF SALE DEED NO.802/2005. P5 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.KSTP/KTR/A2-30/02(K) DATED 29/6/2005. P6 COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 10/8/2005 SENT BY THE PETITIONER THROUGH HIS COUNSEL. P7 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 3/10/2005 OF 3RD RESPONDENT. P8 COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER THROUGH HIS COUNSEL DATED 17/11/2005. P9 COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 9/1/2006. P10 COPY OF THE POST RECEIPT AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD. P11 COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY DEMAND NOTICE NO.2552/2005 AND 2553/2005 DATED 19/12/2005. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.18829 of 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T Certain properties were acquired from the petitioner for widening of the M.C. Road. The petitioner was paid compensation for the land acquired. Subsequently on the ground that the petitioner has been paid excess compensation, revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated for recovery of an amount of Rs 1,24,784/-. That is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner's contention is that, the action has been taken on the basis of a complaint by the 5th respondent herein. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has been paid compensation for the land acquired from him. Therefore the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not liable to refund any amount paid to him as compensation. 2. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the petitioner has been paid W.P.(C)No.18829 of 2006 -2- compensation for 13.93 ares whereas actually only 11.91 ares were acquired from him. The difference in compensation paid to the petitioner is sought to be recovered, is the contention raised in the counter affidavit. On 18.7.2006 this court passed the following interim order: “Government Pleader takes notice for R1 and R4. Urgent notice by speed post to R2 and R3-returnable in ten days. The revenue recovery proceedings impugned will stand stayed for a period of two months on condition that the petitioner executes simple bond without sureties to the 2nd respondent to satisfy the demand subject to further orders. Petitioner will also apply for impleadment of Smt.Usha referred to in the writ petition.” Subsequently taking into account the contentions in the counter affidavit, this court passed another order on 17.9.2007, which reads as follows: “The case of respondents 2 and 3 is that for acquiring 11.91 ares of property of the petitioner, he has collected compensation for 13.93 ares. According to respondents 2 and 3 balance 2.02 ares of property is still held by the petitioner after collecting compensation for the same. Counsel for the additional 5th respondent submitted that petitioner claimed additional 5th respondent's property also as his. The sale of property by petitioner to respondents 3 and 4 is covered by Ext. P4 sale deed which was subsequently registered. In the circumstances, I direct the District Survey Superintendent, Kollam to conduct survey of the acquired property with reference to original of Ext. P4 sale deed and after measuring the balance property of the petitioner and additional 5th respondent. Survey report should be filed in this court stating the exact extent of land acquired from petitioner and whether the first respondent's claim of excess compensation received by petitioner for 2.02 ares is correct or not. There will be direction to the petitioner to withdraw the suit immediately, if W.P.(C)No.18829 of 2006 -3- not already done. The report should be filed by the District Survey Superintendent within two months from now. Government Pleader will forward copy of this order to the District Survey Superintendent, Kollam for conducting measurement and for filing report.” 3. The learned Government Pleader submits that pursuant to the said order, survey was conducted and a report was filed before this Court. But that report does not find a place in the case file. The counsel for the petitioner would contend that, he also has not received any copy. According to the learned Government Pleader, as per the survey report, the petitioner is still in possession of the excess land for which also compensation has been paid to him and therefore he is still liable to refund the excess amount. 4. Having heard both sides, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: The 3rd respondent shall issue a copy of the survey report pursuant to the interim order dated 17.9.2007 to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this W.P.(C)No.18829 of 2006 -4- judgment. Thereupon it would be open to the petitioner to take appropriate action, if the survey report is adverse to him. If the petitioner does not take any action or get an order from appropriate authority in respect thereof staying the further proceedings, it would be open to the respondents 1 to 4 to continue proceedings for recovery of the amount in dispute. In order to enable the petitioner to sort out his remedies, the interim order passed would continue to be in force for a period of two more months. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/