IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2011 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 4369 of 2011(U) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- ALIAS CHACKO, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. S/O. CHACKO, THAIYYANIKAL HOUSE, KUNNAPILLY, PERUVA P.O., MULAKAYAM VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.GEORGE VARGHESE, SMT.K.REENA, SMT.K.J.LIMMY. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM-686 001. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, M.V.I.P.DIVISION, PIRAVAM-686 664. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, M.V.I.P. KURUPUNTHARA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 603. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 4369 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner who is the owner in possession and enjoyment of 60.70 ares of land comprised in survey No.201/3 B-2 and 201/3 A-3 of Mulakulam village filed this writ petition mainly with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P4 representation to enable him to get the price of the land acquired from him and also for re-conveyance of the excess land acquired from him. The case of the petitioner is that in excess of the original extent proposed to be acquired for the purpose of construction of Irrigation canal, acquisition was effected. Despite such an assertion in the writ petition the petitioner has not given the details of the extent of actual acquisition alleged to have been made in excess. However, a conjoint reading of Annexures R1 (a) and R1(b) produced along with the statement filed by the first respondent would give a clue regarding the said aspect. Going by Annexurer R1(b) the total extent actually acquired from the property comprised in WPC.No.4369/2011 : 2 : survey numbers 201/3A is 8.67 ares. Annexure R1(b) is the notice of the award under section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for an amount of Rs.2,55,463/-. The contention of the respondent is that section 12(2) award notice was issued to the petitioner and he had refused to receive the same. It is further contended that, thereupon, notice was affixed at his residence in the presence of 2 witnesses. Per contra the contention of the petitioner is that on being aggrieved by the excess acquisition effected for the aforesaid purpose he had approached the authorities with request for re-conveyance of the excess land. In fact, with the prayer for a direction to release the excess land the petitioner had moved this court by filing WP(C) No.36178/2007. The said writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P2. As per Ext.P2 this court granted liberty to the petitioner to apply to the respondents, in accordance with the rules for getting re-conveyance and, in turn, directed the authority receiving such petitions from the petitioner to take a decision thereon in the light of the offer made in the statement dated 27.2.2010 filed in that writ petition on behalf of the second respondent. Thereupon, the petitioner was served with WPC.No.4369/2011 : 3 : Ext.P3 communication. As per Ext.P3 petitioner was informed that the excess land would be re-conveyed and he was directed to produce the documents for the aforesaid purpose. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the submission of such documents the excess land was not re-conveyed and add to it, he was not given the compensation in respect of the actual extent proposed and acquired from him. That constrained the petitioner to file Ext.P4 representation before the District Collector, the first respondent. It is on being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the first respondent in considering Ext.P4 that this writ petition has been filed with the aforementioned prayers. 2. In the context of the contentions Ext.R1(a) also assumes relevance. It would reveal that pursuant to Ext.P3 judgment of this Court, the authorities concerned conducted a measurement of the properties and earmarked the extent of property to be re-conveyed as 138.15 square meters. The fact is that even after Ext.R1(a) dated 14.2.2011 and Ext.P3 no action was taken for re-conveying the property and also to release the amount of compensation to which the petitioner is WPC.No.4369/2011 : 4 : entitled to, in accordance with law. The learned Government Pleader on instruction submitted that the entire property viz., 8.67 ares acquired from the possession of the petitioner was handed over to the requisitioning authority. It is further submitted that in the said circumstances re-conveyance could be effected only on permission from the Government. Evidently, the petitioner has not so far moved the Government for that behalf. Taking not of such circumstances obtained in this writ petition, it is disposed of as hereunder:- It will be open to the petitioner either to receive the compensation awarded as per Annexure R1(b) and then to make a requisition of reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. However, if he chooses to get re-conveyance of 138.15 square meters identified as the extent of property to be conveyed as per Annexure R1(a) it will be open to him to approach the Government for the said purpose through a proper application/representation. However, that shall not be a ground for non disbursement of the compensation in respect of the extent of property acquired from him in terms of the notification. In case, the petitioner prefers a petition before the WPC.No.4369/2011 : 5 : Government with a prayer to re-convey the excess property, orders thereon shall be passed expeditiously, in accordance with the relevant rules, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such a request from the petitioner. In case, the petitioner approaches the competent authority for disbursement of the amount awarded to him depending upon the nature of the demand, appropriate action also be taken on that request expeditiously. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge