IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2008 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 15697 of 2008(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ KEMEMA LISBETH MATHEW, D/O. JACOB MATHEW, VETTAMALA HOUSE, MANARKAD P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.DILIP SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 3. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LA (GENERAL), KOTTAYAM. 4. MANARKAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MANARKAD, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANTH BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).No.15697 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that late Jacob Mathew was the registered holder of the acquired property and notice under Section 9(3) was issued to him as well as to his wife Smt.Sheela Mathew, the persons in actual physical possession of the property at that time. The respondents were not aware of the demise of Sri.Jacob Mathew. The notice sent to Jacob Mathew was returned unserved with the endorsement that Jacob Mathew is no more. Smt.Sheela Mathew did not file any claim in response to the notice under Section 9(3). Accordingly, an award was passed and award notice under Section 12(2) was issued to Smt.Sheela Mathew. There was no response from her side to the notice under Section 12(2). Thereafter the amount was retained under revenue deposit and possession notice was issued. There was no objection to the possession notice under Section 15(3) and the respondents could take possession peacefully from Sheela Mathew. Since award was passed and possession taken, the present writ petition under Article 226 is not WPC.No.15697/08 2 maintainable. Government Pleader would cite judgments of the Supreme Court in this context. 2. Sri.Vinod Ravindranath, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that upon the demise of the original owner of Jacob Mathew, the petitioner also became a co-owner of the property along with her mother and sisters. Petitioner being an interested person should have been issued notice under Section 9(3). That was not done. Therefore the whole acquisition proceedings including the award and taking of possession is vitiated. Learned counsel also submitted that certain other cases challenging the acquisition proceedings for the very same purpose i.e. establishment of a taxi stand and market for the Manarkad Grama Panchayat is pending before this court. Counsel therefore requested that the proceedings for acquisition of the property in question be quashed and Land Acquisition Officer be directed to issue Section 9(3) notice afresh to the petitioner. 3. I have considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. Concededly Smt.Sheela Mathew the mother of the petitioner was a co-owner along with the petitioner. She was served with notice and she did not file any objections. The petitioner does not have a case that WPC.No.15697/08 3 she has any interest other than that of Sheela Mathew in the property. In other words the petitioner and Smt.Sheela Mathew are co- owners having no conflicting interests over the property. The petitioner is only a student undergoing her studies at Bangalore and in as much as petitioner's mother Sheela Mathew was served with notice, it can be assumed that petitioner was also given notice. The public nature of the purpose of acquisition is beyond challenge. The only grievance which the petitioner can legitimately have is that she did not get an opportunity to have a reference under Section 18 in respect of the correct compensation payable for her acquired property. Under these circumstances, even as I decline jurisdiction for quashing the land acquisition proceedings, I direct the third respondent to entertain an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act seeking a reference to the competent civil court, if such an application is filed by the petitioner within ten days from today and dispose of that application as if it is filed within the statutory period of six weeks of the notice under Section 12(2). PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No.15697/08 4