IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2008 / 22ND CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 12850 of 2008(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.MADHAVAN SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON SRI.P.V.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION RAILWAYS, POWER HOUSE ROAD, CHENTHITTA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI R.LAKSHMINARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C)NO.12850 OF 2008 -------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of April, 2008 JUDGMENT Raman, J. The petitioner challenges Ext.P11 order passed by the District Collector declining to disburse the balance compensation in respect of certain extent of land sought to be taken over by the Government, which was at that time in the possession of the Travancore Devaswom Board. Earlier, the petitioner had approached this Court seeking to quash Exts.P1 to P3 notices issued by the Land Acquisition Officer directing the Travancore Devaswom Board to produce the documents of title in respect of the property under acquisition. Admittedly, the properties have been acquired by the Government for expansion of the Thiruvananthapuram Central Railway Station and the petitioner claimed title to the said properties. There was a dispute as to whether the property so acquired is a Government property or the property belonging to the Devaswom Board. Therefore, the writ petitioner was given an opportunity to establish his title. This Court found that there is no reason to proceed with the writ petition and directed that the -2- WP(C).No.12850/2008 compensation shall be disbursed, only if the Devaswom Board establishes his right and title over the property. Hence, the Devaswom Board was directed to comply with the notices. This order was confirmed in Ext.P8 judgment in W.A.No.1350/2004. Pursuant to the notice issued, the petitioner produced all the documents. But the authorities were not satisfied that the documents produced will establish the title in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the question arises as to whether the petitioner has got title over the property and whether Ext.P11 is liable to be interfered with at this stage. 2. Admittedly, the lands are acquired and if it is Government land, necessarily no compensation is liable to pay. On the other hand, if it is Devaswom land, the petitioner is certainly entitled to compensation. Whether it is Government land or Devaswom land is therefore a dispute to be resolved. True that the petitioner has produced certain documents before the authorities. But being a title dispute it may not be appropriate for this Court to enter a finding based on the title deed said to have been produced by the petitioner before the District Collector. This is a civil dispute and necessarily the dispute is to be resolved after taking evidence, both oral and documentary, by the civil court in the normal course. The petitioner had been paid substantial amount by way of compensation. -3- WP(C).No.12850/2008 What is in dispute is only regarding the balance compensation. By the impugned order the amount already paid has been directed to be refunded. 3. Heard both sides. 4. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of as follows: The direction contained in Ext.P11 to refund the amount already paid will stand stayed. However, it is for the petitioner to establish his rights and title over the property and therefore he is relegated to the civil court for such purpose. The petitioner may approach the civil court having jurisdiction over the area in question and institute a suit within a period of three months, whereupon the civil court will adjudicate the dispute and decide the same accordingly. P.R.RAMAN, Judge. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. kcv.