IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2011 / 17TH SRAVANA 1933 LA.App..No. 1323 of 2010() ------------------------------- LAR.135/2003 of SUB COURT, CHERTHALA .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ------------------------------- REGHUNATHAN NAIR, KANNANTHARA MALIKA, THEVARVATTOM, THYCATTUSSERY. BY ADVS. SRI.RASHEED C.NOORANAD SRI.SUNI M.D. SMT.V.SREEJA SRI.G.GOPAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE, REP. BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), GENERAL, ALAPPUZHA-688001. 2. THE PROJECT OFFICER NO.III, OECF PROJECT, KWA, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695522. 3. THRESIAMMA, KELUTHARA, THYCATTUSSERY-688528. 4. BHARGAVAN, S/O.KESAVAN, NALUTHYCAL, THYCATTUSSERY-688528. R1 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.V.T.K.MOHANAN R2 BY ADV. M.DINESH, SC., KWA. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JJ. ------------------------------- LAA.NO. 1323 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose,J. Claimant in a reference under section 31(2) challenges the award of the Reference Court declining release of the amount under deposit to him. The property in dispute had an extent of 3.10 Ares. The compensation under deposit together with statutory benefits amounted to Rs.80,000/- to Rs.90,000/-. The same was deposited as the appellant was unable to produce documents establishing his title to the same. The argument of Mr.Rasheed C.Noornad is that in this case where the property was taken over from the appellant and anybodyelse claimed title to the property, the court below was not justified in not releasing the amount to the appellant. Mr. V.T.K.Mohanan, Senior Government Pleader submitted that the appellant conceded before the Reference Court in his evidence that he did not have title to the property under acquisition. When that is the situation the amount under deposit is to be escheated to the Government. LAA.1323/2010 2 2. We have considered the rival submissions addressed at the bar. We are unable to accept the arguments of learned Government Pleader that the entire amount under deposit is to be escheated. If it was the Government's claim that the property under acquisition belongs to the government there was no necessity to the Government to resort to the land acquisition proceedings. The Government resorted to the land acquisition proceedings obviously in view of the situation that the property was possessed by the appellant. It was from the appellant's possession that the property was taken over. True, the appellant failed in establishing his title but the appellant had possessory title over the property. We feel that considering the possession the appellant was enjoying over the property, the appellant is entitled to release atleast 60% of the amount in deposit. 3. There is some confusion as to what is the exact amount under deposit. We direct the reference court to verify the correct amount and release to the appellant 60% of the compensation deposited by the land Acquisition officer for 3.10 Ares of land to which the appellant claims . The balance 40% will be escheated to the Government. LAA.1323/2010 3 4. The appeal is allowed, however without any order as to costs. We record the submission of the appellant that he will not claim any further enhancement on the basis of the award passed under section 18 in respect of the properties. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ LAA.1323/2010 4