IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 35687 of 2010(I) ---------------------------------- OS.128/2008 of SUB COURT, SULTHAN BATHERY .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------- B.CHANDRAN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, 8, KAVERIAMMA NILAYA, LAKE CITY, BEGUR P.O., KODICHIKKANAHALLI, BANGALORE - 76. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.GEORGE(PUTHIYIDAM) RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KALPATTA, WAYANAD - 673 121. 2. DEPUTY COLLECTOR (L.A) AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, WAYANAD, COLLECTORATE, KALPATTA - 673 121. 3. C.J.JOY, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 58 YEARS, CHEERAMKUZHI HOUSE, GONIKOPPAL, DHANUGALA P.O. KOORG DISTRICT, KARNATAKA - 577 118. 4. MINI SEBASTIAN, AGED 43 YEARS, W/O.SEBASTIAN THOMAS, PORIYATH HOUSE, IRITTY P.O., PAYANCHERRY DESOM, KIZHOOR AMSOM, THALASSERY TALUK - 670 703. 5. TOMY M.MATHEW, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.MATHEW, MANKUTHEL (H), IRITTY P.O., PAYANCHERRY DESOM, KIZHOOR AMSOM, THALASSERY TALUK - 670 703. 6. MRS.BIJI JOSEPH, AGED 37 YEARS, W/O.TOMY M.MATHEW, MANKUTHEL (H), IRITTY P.O., PAYANCHERRY DESOM, KIZHOOR AMSOM, THALASSERY TALUK - 670 703. svs/ ........2/-.. ....2... 7. DENNIS JOY, AGED 24 YEAS, S/O.C.J.JOY, CHEERAMKUZHI (H), GONIKOPPAL, DHANUGALA P.O. KOORG DISTRICT, KARNATAKA - 577 118. 8. MARY JAMES, AGED 54 YEARS, W/O.JAMES, KOLLARATHU (H), MURINGODI DESOM, MELMURINGODI P.O., MANTHARA AMSOM, THALASSERY TALUK - 670 602. 9. ALEXANDER JAMES, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.JAMES, KOLLARATHU (H), MURINGODI DESOM, MELMURINGODI P.O., MANTHARA AMSOM, THALASSERY TALUK - 670 602. 10. DEEPTHI JOY, AGED 29 YEARS, D/O.C.J.JOY, CHEERAMKUZHI HOUSE, GONIKOPPAL, DHANUGALA P.O., KOORG DISTRICT, KARNATAKA- 577 118. 11. ROSAMMA JOY, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O.C.J.JOY, CHEERAMKUZHI HOUSE, GONIKOPPAL, DHANUGALA P.O., KOORG DISTRICT, KARNATAKA- 577 118. R1 & R2 BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 35687 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has filed this writ petition mainly seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to refrain from disbursing the land value payable to respondents 3 to 11 under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of four items of properties described in schedule I of Ext.P1 notification issued under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioner contends that he has instituted a suit, O.S. No.128 of 2008 in the Sub Court, Sulthan Bathery to set aside the sale deed executed by his mother in favour of respondents 3 to 11 and that till the said suit is decided, respondents 1 and 2 have no right to pay over the compensation in respect of the aforesaid items of lands to respondents 3 to 11. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to take a decision on Ext.P2 representation wherein also he has sought similar reliefs. 2. From a reading of the writ petition, it is evident that as of now, the land which is the subject matter of Ext.P1 notification belongs to respondents 3 to 11. The claim made by the petitioner is that the sale deeds executed by his mother in favour of respondents 3 to 11 are liable to be set aside and that he has instituted a suit O.S. No.128 of 2008 seeking that relief. He contends that until the suit is tried and disposed of, the land value may not be paid over to respondents 3 to 11. In my WPC No.35687/2010 2 opinion, if the petitioner has any right over the lands which are sought to be acquired, his remedy is to move the Sub Court, Sulthan Bathery where O.S. No.128 of 2008 is pending and to seek appropriate interim orders restraining respondents 3 to 11 from receiving the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer or if permissible, to institute a fresh suit with the Land Acquisition Officer, the State Government an the rival claimants on the party array. A writ petition, according to me, is not the proper remedy. Further, the second respondent cannot decide on the entitlement of the petitioner to receive the compensation. He can only refer the dispute, if at all a claim is made by the petitioner, to the Sub Court for determination. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that respondents 3 to 11 are holding properties under documents of sale executed by the petitioner's mother. So long as the sale deeds are not set aside, the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that respondents 3 to 11 are not entitled to receive the compensation. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move the competent civil court. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps WPC No.35687/2010 3 WPC No.35687/2010 4