IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2011 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 38622 of 2010(C) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. POOKKUNJIKOYA PAATTAKAL AMINI, AGED 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT PAATTAKAL HOUSE, AMINI ISLAND, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP. 2. KASIM KOYA, AGED 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT PAATTAKAL HOUSE, AMINI ISLAND, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP. BY ADV. SRI.A.P.SUBHASH. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. ADMINISTRATOR, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATHY-682 555. 2. THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATHY-682 555. 3. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ADROTH ISLAND, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP. 4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATHY-682 555. R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.38622 of 2010 ---------------------------- Dated 16th March, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioners contend that the properties having an extent of 48 and 1/8 cents and 1600 square metres comprised in Survey No.232/12B and 232/1 of Androth Village in Androth Island are belonging to them and their family members. Out of the properties, acquisition has been effected pursuant to Ext.P4 notification issued under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short `the Act'), dated 10.1.2006. Notification under section 9(1) read with section 10 of the Act has been issued as per Ext.P5 dated 1.11.2007. This writ petition has been filed mainly with the prayer to issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P4 and subsequent proceedings in respect of the properties belonging to the petitioners and other members of their family having an extent of 48 and 1/8 cents and 1600 square metres comprised in Survey No.232/12B and 232/1 of Androth Village in Androth Island of Union Territory of Lakshadweep. The alternative prayer is to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to afford an opportunity to the petitioners to have a valid reference as contemplated under Section 18 of the Act in respect of proposed Ext.P4 acquisition proceedings. WP(C).No.38622/2010 2 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 1 to 4 in this writ petition. It is stated thereunder that notification under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 10.1.2006 and it was published in the Gazette 19.1.2006 by the 2nd respondent, as is obvious from Ext.R1(a). Exts.R1(b) and R1(c) respectively would reveal that in tune with the statutory requirements the said notification was published in two newspapers namely, Mathrubhumi daily dated 25.2.2006 and the New Indian Express daily dated 25.2.2006. It is further stated thereunder that after survey and measurement a declaration under section 6 of the Act was issued by the Administrator on 11.12.2006. The petitionerr or any other interested parties did not make any objection at all. Though there is a challenge against section 4(1) notification in Ext.P4, I am of the view that the attack against Ext.P4 notification dated 10.1.2006 issued under section 4(1) is too feeble and on the grounds raised in this writ petition the petitioners cannot succeed in their attempt to assail Ext.P4. The contention of the petitioners is that they are yet to receive any compensation in respect of the properties acquired from them comprised in the aforesaid survey numbers. It is in the said context that the alternative prayer as mentioned above was made by WP(C).No.38622/2010 3 the petitioners. Evidently, the request of the petitioners is for affording an opportunity to make an application for reference in terms of section 18 of the Act in respect of the acquisition in question made pursuant to Ext.P4 notification. I do not think that this Court should consider the said claim on merits at this stage. In case the petitioners are entitled to make a valid claim under section 18 of the Act, they may do so, in accordance with the provisions under the Land Acquisition Act. Needless to say that, in case the petitioners and/or the other co-owners of the property in question that was acquired pursuant to Ext.P4, make an application for reference under section 18 of the Act to the competent authority, that authority shall consider the same, in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders thereon expeditiously. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation as to the merits of such a claim. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS // true copy // P.S. to Judge WP(C).No.38622/2010 4