IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 7TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 26668 of 2009(C) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ CHUMMAR MELEDOM CHERIAN, AGED 55 YEARS, MELEDOM HOUSE, HOSPITAL JUNCTION, CHOTTANIKKARA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. MR.S.SANAL KUMAR, MR.A.FRANCIS. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRERARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM,. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR(LA),KOCHI, CORPORATION, VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE CHOTTANIKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. R1,R2 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.I.V. PRAMOD R4 BY ADV. MR.S.SREEKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.26668 of 2009-C = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th day of September, 2009. JUDGMENT 1.The fourth respondent Grama Panchayat required certain land for establishing a crematorium or burial ground. It attempted to purchase land by negotiation. That did not work out. Ultimately, it took recourse to compulsory acquisition. It identified an item of land and passed a resolution. Following that, it obtained the concurrence of the Government. Acquisition proceedings followed. Notices were issued. One Narayanan Namboothiripad was shown as the land owner. However, after passing the award, notices were issued to Narayanan Namboothiripad and the petitioner Chummar Meledom Cherian to collect the compensation amount lying in deposit in the civil court on reference and also to give possession. The petitioner asserts that before the said WPC26668/09 -: 2 :- notice, he had no information about the acquisition proceedings and that he is being proceeded against otherwise than in accordance with law. 2.The issuance of notification has, ultimately, led to the passing of the award. 3.The petitioner does not dispute the public need or the acquisition as such. 4.The conflict on the basis of the materials on record, that too, without the aforesaid Narayanan Namboothiripad being represented, is as to the identity of the property, to establish the extent that would be acquired from the petitioner, who asserts that as per Ext.P1 sale deed, he and his wife had obtained title to a larger extent, of which the acquired land is part. Therefore, the ultimate controversy is as to the extent of land that is being acquired from the petitioner and his entitlement to claim enhancement of WPC26668/09 -: 3 :- compensation from what is fixed by the Collector. 5.With the aforesaid, turning to Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, sub-section 1 thereof, would show that the Collector, while passing the award, has to take into consideration (1) the extent of land being acquired, (2) the compensation to be paid and (3) the person entitled to be paid compensation. If there is controversy regarding the last among the three aforesaid, the matter will go to the civil court on reference under Section 31. If there is controversy regarding any among the earlier two components, that will directly have an impact on the total compensation to be paid. Therefore, that will go to the civil court on a reference under Section 18. The reference under Section 31 having already been made, all that remains is the entitlement of the petitioner also to seek a reference under Section 18. Having regard to the fact that the entire proceedings followed as if the petitioner is nowhere in the picture and WPC26668/09 -: 4 :- because he was shown as the occupant, for the first time in the land acquisition proceedings by the Collector, I deem it appropriate that the petitioner is given a further opportunity to file an application for reference under Section 18 by excluding the period taken from the passing of award till now, if the petitioner files such application before the competent authority within 30 days from now. If that is done, such application shall be duly acted upon and a reference be made to the civil court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. This writ petition is ordered in terms of the aforesaid directions, however, refusing to interfere with the acquisition proceedings. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/031009