IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2008 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 29439 of 2006(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ KOTTARUVAM SREE MAHAVISHNUMOORTHY DEVASTHANAM, P.O.PARAVANADUKKAM, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KOTTARUVAM SREE MAHAVISHNUMOORTHY DEVASTHANAM BHARANA SAMITHY (PUTHUKUDY GOPALAN NAIR). BY ADV. SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD SRI.D.NARENDRANATH SRI.M.HARISHARMA SRI.T.P.ELDHOSE SMT.O.K.SANTHA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), KASARGOD. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA THANKAPPAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX:- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 20-5-2005 NO.A.899/05 K.S.T.P. ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF AWARD NO.10/06 (REF.NO.a55/05 KSTP (LAC 2/05) DATED 24-6-2006 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION ALONG WITH STATEMENT ATTACHED THERETO) DATED 2-8-06 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 29439 OF 2006 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of May, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the Kottaruvam Sree Mahavishnumoorthy Devasthanam. According to them, two items of property belonging to them has been acquired by the Government for the purposes of widening of Kasaragod – Kanhangad State Highway. The dispute forming subject matter of this writ petition is regarding item No.2 which is an extent of 3.882 cents in R.S.125/1B1. According to the petitioners they are having title over the above item which lies within their compound wall and a portion of the compound wall is constructed on that item. The stand of the Government is that the petitioner does not have any title in respect of the item. That item is Government AW land belonging to the Government and it is not necessary for the Government to initiate any land acquisition proceedings in respect of that item. According to the Government even without land acquisition proceedings Government is entitled to utilise that item for the purpose of widening the State Highway. The grievance of the petitioner is that on the basis of the unsustainable claim that the said item is Government AW land what the Government is attempting to do is to disposess the petitioner from the above land WP(C)N0.29439/06 -2- which is always been enjoyed by the petitioner as a holding along with the petitioner's item No.1 propeprty which is concededly acquired. The petitioner contends that the property is covered by their title document. The petitioner has an alternative claim of title by prescription through adverse possession and limitation. Upon passage of the award the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 reference application. In the reference application, specific prayer is made for referring the question of determination of the compensation in respect of the above item No.2 property also. The prayer in the writ petition is that a direction be issued to the Land Acquisition Offficer to allow the reference application in full. In other words, to make reference not only in respect of item No.1 property but also in respect of item No.2. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Land Acquisition Officer wherein the contention is that item No.2 does not belong to the petitioner but belong to the Government and no land acquisition proceedings have been initiated or any award was passed in respect of item No.2. It is accordingly contended that in the absence of any proceedings or award the petitioner is not entitled to insist on a reference under section 18. 3. It was persuasive submissions which were addressed by WP(C)N0.29439/06 -3- Sri.Krishna Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel as directed by me drew a sketch showing the lie and location of these two items of property and placed the same for peprusal. The sketch would show that the petitioners contention that they were in actual enjoyment of the property item No.2 lying within their compound wall is not without force. At the same time I do not think that this court will be justified under this jurisdiction, in directing the Land Acquisition Officer to make a reference to the civil court in respect of the property which is item No.2. Reference under section 18 is contemplated only where in land acquisition proceedings an award has been passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and the awardee has become dissatisfied with the compensation determined. In this case where the definite stand taken by the Government is that the property is Government land and that even without land acquisition proceedings Government can utilise their land for whatever purpose they choose it is not possible to grant the relief of directing the awarding officer to make a reference to the court. The grievance of the petitioner, even if genuine, will have to be got redressed at the hands of a competent civil court. I dispose of the writ petition directing the petitioners to voice their grievance before a competent civil court. There will be a WP(C)N0.29439/06 -4- direction to the respondents to maintain status quo as regards both the items which are subject matter of this writ petition (item covered by the award and the item not covered by the award) for a period of two months. Ext.P3 reference application to the extent it pertains to the properties covered by the award is found to be valid and the awarding officer will make reference to the Land Acquisition Court so far as the same pertains to the property covered by the award (Item No.1). (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) ksv/-