IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 8TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 27135 of 2005(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUBBARAYAN CHAKRAPANI EMBRAN, AGED 72 YEARS, S/O. SUBBRAYAN EMBRAN, PUTHEN MADOM, KUNNAPPILLY KARA. BY ADV. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 3. SPECIAL THAHSILDAR (LA), M.V.I.P. KURUPPANTHARA. G.. P. SRI BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,J. ------------------------ W.P.(C)No.27135 of 2005 ------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT The grievance voiced by the petitioner is that the respondent the land acquisition officer without any justifiable reason kept the compensation amount due for his acquired properties under revenue deposit. He submits that though the award was passed as early as on 29/12/2001 and he had produced his title document relating to the acquired property earlier, the compensation amount was released to him only on 31/8/2005 and that too pursuant to the judgment of this court in W.P.(C) No.15134/2005. According to Sri.A.T.Anilkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, the title document produced by the petitioner discloses a clear and marketable title to the petitioner over the acquired property. 2. Sri.Basant Balaji, the learned Government Pleader would submit that as per the revenue records, the properties stood in the name of Sri.Ravi Raman and not in the name of the WPC.No.27135/2005 2 petitioner. The learned Government Pleader pointed out that after producing the title document it was necessary to remove the anomaly of the documents standing in the name of the petitioner and the revenue records standing in the name of Sri.Ravi Raman. The petitioner never approached the respondent till 2005 when he filed W.P.(C) No.15134/2005 before this court. That writ petition was filed with a prayer that the amount be directed to be released with interest. This court became inclined to direct release of only the principal amount. Prayer for interest was declined. 3. Sri. A.T.Anil Kumar submitted that the very circumstance that the respondents never thought in terms of sending a reference under Section 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act will reveal that the government had no serious dispute regrading the petitioner's title over the property. He further submitted that even if the acquiring authority thought that Sri.Ravi Raman also was interested in the compensation, the course to be adopted was to issue notice to Sri.Ravi Raman and then draw up a reference arraying both parties and facilitate adjudication by the court. The above submission of Sri. Anil WPC.No.27135/2005 3 Kumar cannot be said to be totally without force. But, I find that the petitioner had approached this court in 2005 with a prayer for release of the amount with interest. That prayer was declined/not granted. May be true that the issue was not specifically adjudicated by this court. But whatever that be, I do not think that the petitioner will be justified in invoking writ jurisdiction of this court again seeking a relief which was declined or not granted in the earlier writ petition. This writ petition will stand dismissed. But, this judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioner approaching a regular civil court for the relief sought for. If a civil suit is filed by the petitioner within one month from today, the period between 2/6/2005 and the date of actual filing of the suit will be excluded from the reckoning under Section 14 of the Limitation Act for the purpose of limitation. (PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE) dpk