IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 3RD ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 21350 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- CHERIYA KOYA, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.KOYA HAJJUMMADA, MONTHRAMPALLI PADIPPURA, ANDROTH ISLAND, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR SMT.VANDANA MENON SMT.ANJU P.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP (COLLECTORATE),KAVARATHY. 2. T. CHERIYA KOYA DEPUTY COLLECTOR (HQ) OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF UNION TERITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP (COLLECTORATE) KAVARATHY. 3. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ANDROTH. 4. MAPPLATMOOSANKAKKADA SYEDMOHAMMEDKOYA, ANDROTH ISLAND. ADV. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,SC,LAKSHADWEEP ADMN FOR R1,3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P. (C) No. 21350 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T An item of land has been acquired for the purpose of construction of a link road. That exercise is carried out under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioner asserts that he is entitled to the compensation amount. The 4th respondent appears to have raised a claim before the land acquisition authorities in relation to the compensation. The petitioner, with the materials on record, essentially, wants this court to conclude that the stand of the 4th respondent is frivolous and the acquired land is not part of the land involved in a civil litigation pending between the petitioner and the 4th respondent. On such adjudication and conclusion, his further request is that the award amount may be ordered to be released to the petitioner. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the stand of the 4th respondent is a frivolous claim, having regard to the nature of the power and scope of adjudication while W.P. (C) No. 21350 OF 2009 . : 2 : passing an award under Section 11, it may not be appropriate to leave it to the Collector to decide as to whether a claim is well founded or is to be trashed off as frivolous. This may lead to uncertainties in the adjudicating process in accordance with the Rule of Law. Therefore the statutory course of action to be adopted is for the Collector to make a reference to the competent Court for adjudication in terms of Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act. This is exactly what has been done by the first respondent. Hence it is ordered that in view of the dispute raised, I do not find any legal infirmity and jurisdictional error in Ext.P1. All that could be done is for petitioner to seek indulgence of the competent Court to expedite the final disposal of the inference. Writ petition is dismissed. ( THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) jma