IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2008 / 15TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 28351 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. R.VIJAYAKUMAR, VIJAYA BHAVAN RAMANKARI, KUTTANAD. 2. VALSAKUMARI, W/O.VIJAYAKUMAR, DO.DO. BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA 2. ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KSTP DIVISION, PROJECT-1, KOTTARAKKARA. 3. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), GENERAL, ALAPPUZHA. 4. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, KERALA STATE TRANSPORT PROJECT, PULAMON PO., KOTTARAKKARA. G.P. SRI.BASANTH BALAJI ( R1 TO R4) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,J. ------------------------ W.P.(C)No.28351 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT The properties of the petitioners were acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for widening the Alappuzha – Changanacherry road and Exts.P1 and P2 awards were passed by the 3rd respondent – the land acquisition officer. The award amounts were deposited under Section 31 (2) before the court and the petitioners have been able to withdraw the amounts which were deposited. The petitioners' grievance is that their applications for reference under Section 18 to the Court for determining the question of correct compensation payable for the acquired properties were rejected by the land acquisition officer on the reason that they had given consent to the effect that they will be satisfied with the compensation determined by the land acquisition officer and the amounts to be paid to them towards rehabilitation assistance. The writ petition is filed with the following prayers; WPC.No.28351/2008 2 i). issue a writ of mandamus to the respondents 1 and 3 to refer L.A.C. No.71/2003 and L.A.C. No.74/2003 to the Sub Court, Alappuzha under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act forthwith. ii). Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 4th respondent to pay the amounts stated in Exts.P9 and P10 letters to the petitioners with 15% interest if for any reason this Hon'ble court finds that the first relief can't be granted. 2. When the writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader Sri.Basant Balaji took notice for respondents. The Government Pleader was directed to seek instructions from the concerned respondents and to make available for perusal the original atleast a copy of the written consent referred to in Exts.P7 and P8. Today attested photo stat copies of the written consents referred to in Exts.P7 and P8 are placed before me by the learned Government Pleader. There WPC.No.28351/2008 3 is no dispute at the bar that the consents do contain the signatures of the petitioners. According to Sri.J.Omprakash, the learned counsel for the petitioners, at the time of acquisition the petitioners were made to subscribe their signature to several printed forms and it cannot be said that the petitioners signed the printed forms with consensus regarding what is stated therein. What is discernible from the consents is that the petitioners have agreed to receive the amounts to be offered to them towards rehabilitation assistance over and above the land acquisition compensation and that they will not be claiming any further amount towards the additional compensation. Sri.Om Prakash referred to Ext.P5 ex parte judgment in a suit for injunction which was filed by the petitioners arraying the respondents when there was an attempt to demolish the compound wall which was covered by Exts.P1 and P2 awards even before the petitioners got an opportunity from the reference court for getting the compound wall properly valued. The argument is that the respondents did not raise any contest in Ext.P5 though it has been specifically averred in the plaint that an application for reference was made and that the respondents WPC.No.28351/2008 4 are liable to make a reference. Ext.P5 judgment should estop the respondents from relying on the so called consents. It is seen from Ext.P5 that it is a temporary relief which has been given by the learned Munsiff to the petitioners. The injunction granted is “conditional prohibitory injunction”. I am at a loss to understand how the learned Munisff court could pass a decree of conditional prohibitory injunction while disposing of the suit finally. I am also at a loss to understand how this decree could be passed without notice to the District Government Pleader. Whatever that be, the question whether the petitioners had made a valid application for reference under Section 18 and whether the respondents are liable to make a reference under Section 18 never arose for decision in Ext.P5. Ext.P5 cannot preclude the respondents from contending that the petitioners are not entitled for seeking reference under Section 18. According to me, so long as the consents produced before me are not got set aside in appropriate proceedings initiated in that regard at the instance of the petitioners, the petitioners are bound by them. I am not inclined to grant relief No. 1. As for the relief No. 2, the same can be granted to a certain extent. WPC.No.28351/2008 5 Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition directing the 4th respondent to pay the amount mentioned in Exts.P9 and P10 letters to the petitioners within three weeks of the petitioners producing a copy of this judgment. (PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE) dpk