IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 24TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 2962 of 2008(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SAPTHAMI, SANTHOSH BHAVAN, NEDUVATHOOR, NEELESWARAM P.O. KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN BRITTO SRI.C.A.RAJEEV RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR (LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER) CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), RAILWAYS, KOLLAM. BY SHRI.BASANT BALAJI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI. N.B.SUNILNATH, SC, RAILWAYS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.2962 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 13th February, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner had purchased 8 cents of property comprised in Sy.No.371/7A1 in Neduvathoor Village, Kottarakkara Taluk, as per Sale Deed No.340, dated 8.2.1990. The vendor of the property purchased the same from one George, as per Sale Deed No.193, dated 14.2.73. It is averred that George purchased the property in the year 1963. The case of the petitioner is that this property was acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer as per the requisition of the Indian Railways. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondents 2 and 3 have not awarded any compensation to the petitioner, in respect of 8 cents of land acquired from her possession. It is also averred that refusal on the part of the 3rd respondent to pass an award is unreasonable, and if the 3rd respondent is of the opinion that the property is a Government land, he ought to have referred the matter the Land Acquisition Court under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act. Ext.P1 order passed by the Survey Superintendent W.P.(C) No.2962/2008 2 shows that though 8 cents of land claimed by the petitioner was in her possession, as per the revenue records, it is a river purampoke, and the same cannot be shown as the property owned by the petitioner. 2. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader, on instructions, that the definite stand taken by the Land Acquisition Officer is that in view of the order passed by the Survey Superintendent, no compensation can be given to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, even assuming that it was a Government land, the petitioner and her predecessor-in-interest had perfected their title by adverse possession. Petitioner has filed Ext.P2 petition before the District Collector contending that the property is in the possession of one George and subsequent to the assignment, she claimed title. She has also specifically stated that even assuming that the Government had any title over the property, the same was lost by adverse possession and limitation. In view of the contention raised by the petitioner, the Land Acquisition Officer, ought to have referred the matter to the competent Civil court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for considering the claim put forward by the petitioner that she had perfected title by adverse possession. W.P.(C) No.2962/2008 3 In the result, Ext.P3 order passed by the 3rd respondent, Special Tahsildar, is quashed. He is directed to conduct an award enquiry, with notice to the petitioner as well as the concerned Government department and pass an award. In case, the Land Acquisition Officer is of the view that the petitioner has no title over the same, the case will have to be referred to the Sub Court having jurisdiction over the area for considering the claim of the petitioner that she had perfected the title by adverse possession. The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE nj.