IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 3772 of 2010(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- YOGAKSHEMA SABHA - REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, SRI.K.PARAMESWARAN NAMPOOTHIRY, HEAD OFFICE- YOGAKSHEMAM APARTMENTS,THIRUVAMBADI,PO THRISSUR-680 022. BY ADV. SRI.MVS.NAMPOOTHIRY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LA) GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM, GURUVAYOOR. 4. THE SUB TREASURY OFFICER, CHAVAKKAD SUB TREASURY. MS.K.R.DEEPA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.3772 of 2010 (V) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 22nd day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner submits that it was in the exclusive possession of 7.18 ares of land situated in survey No.105/12D of Guruvayoor Village, which was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. In this writ petition, their claim is that as against the aforesaid extent of land acquired, they were paid compensation only for an extent of 6.93 ares of land and that the balance is kept in revenue deposit. According to the petitioner, as is evident from Ext.P1 award itself, the whole property was acquired from them and that as they were in exclusive possession of whole property, they are entitled to be paid compensation for the whole extent acquired. 2. However from the award itself, it is seen that compensation for 6.93 ares of land alone was disbursed to the petitioner for the reason that they could prove title only in respect of that area and the balance compensation is kept in deposit for non-production of title deed. The petitioner also has no case that it WP(C) No.3772/2010 -2- has title for the whole property. In such a situation, if the authorities under the Act have adopted a safe course by deferring disbursement of the compensation till title deed is produced, this Court will not be justified in finding fault with such a course adopted by the authorities. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in State of Kerala v. Kuruvila (2005(3) KLT 580) and contended that they are entitled to be disbursed the amount kept in deposit. However, a reading of the judgment shows that the judgment was rendered in a Land Acquisition Appeal, where on the basis of the evidence that was available, this Court held that even in the absence of production of title deed, the claimant was to be disbursed compensation for the entire extent of land. However, such a direction cannot be issued in the facts of this case and in a proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, I am not in a position to direct the respondents to disburse the balance compensation now kept in revenue deposit. However, there will be a direction to the respondents to take steps for deposit of the compensation before the Appropriate Court as provided under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, which can WP(C) No.3772/2010 -3- issue notice to the petitioner, so that the petitioner can adduce evidence and seek release of the amount depending upon the outcome of such proceedings. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg