IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 26TH BHADRA 1930 LA.App..No. 511 of 2006() ------------------------- LAR.106/2004 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT: CLAIMANTS 1 & 2 -------------------------- 1. T.VELAYUDHAN ACHARY, S/O.THANU ACHARY, CHEKKALAVILAKATHU VEEDU, KEEZHARANOOR MURI, IRANIMUTTOM, KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. T.RAJA GOPALAN ACHARY, S/O.THANU ACHARY, CHEKKALAVILAKATHU VEEDU, KEEZHARANOOR MURI, IRANIMUTTOM, KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMESAN (KANIAPURAM) SRI.S.ARUN RAJ RESPONDENTS: 3RD CLAIMANT ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. OFFICIAL RECEIVER, DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.ACHUTHA KURUP (SR.) SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR SRI.BINDU SREEKUMAR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA T.THANKAPPAN FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-9-08 THE COURT ON THE SAME DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ----------------------------------------------- LAA. No. 511 of 2006 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of September, 2008 J U D G M E N T Being aggrieved by the award passed by the Land Acquisition Reference Court in L.A.R. No. 106 of 2004 claimant Nos. 1 and 2 have preferred this appeal. The reference was made by the first respondent land acquisition officer under section 31(2) since the second respondent Official Receiver, District Court, Thiruvananthapuram who was found to be in possession of the property at the time of acquisition was unable to produce any document establishing his title to the property and the apparent title remained with the appellants. In response to the notice issued by the reference court the appellants filed annexure-A claim statement before the reference court. The second respondent Official Receiver also filed a claim statement claiming entire compensation on the basis of Exts.A1 and A2. A1 was the order passed by the local insolvency court in I.P. No. 2 of 1989 and Ext.A2 was the statement filed by the Official Receiver regarding the assets taken over by him pursuant to Ext.A1 order. Under Ext.A1, the respondent firm M/s. T.V.R. Funds were declared insolvent and the Official Receiver of the court was appointed as receiver for taking over and administering the assets of the firm including the immovable WP(C)N0. -2- properties described in schedule B of the I.P. The appellants filed annexure-A statement tracing title to the property under a family partition deed. The only evidence before the reference court was Exts.A1 and A2. The learned Judge has noticed that the State has no objection in the reference. Sri.Arun Raj S. learned counsel for the appellant would address me extensively on the various grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal. He drew my attention to annexure-A and submitted that the learned Subordinate Judge has not made even a reference to the contentions in annexure-A. He requested that the matter be remitted back to the reference court so that the learned Judge can advert to those contentions and pass a revised judgment. Ordinarily I would have been inclined to accept the request of the learned counsel. But on scanning the land acquisition file I find that the claim of the Official Receiver get support from the various papers kept in that file also. The acquired property was taken possession of from the custody of the Official Receiver. It was not seriously disputed before me by the learned counsel for the appellant that the acquired property was part of the properties covered by Ext.A2 statement. If that be so, so long as Ext.A1 order stands the appellants cannot have any legitimate grievance regarding disbursement of the WP(C)N0. -3- compensation to the Official Receiver. Appeal fails and the same will stand dismissed, but in the circumstances without any order as to costs. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) ksv/-