AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Antony Dominic, J.—The controversy raised in this writ petition concerns the claim of the petitioner for compensation in respect of a portion of the property covered by Exts.P8 to P10 which were issued in relation to the acquisition of the property mentioned therein. According to the petitioner, and as is seen from Ext.P14, the 4th respondent has title only in respect of 0.12 Are out of 0.30 Are acquired. It is also the case of the petitioner that even Ext.P17 Award notes itself proves that the property acquired jointly belongs to the petitioner and the 4th respondent. Complaint of the petitioner is that, in spite of all the above facts, it was without giving notice of acquisition to them that the entire acquisition proceedings have been completed and the property is acquired. On this basis, the petitioner submits that the respondents may be directed to complete the acquisition proceedings issuing notice to the petitioner and allowing them to participate in the enquiry and other proceedings.
However, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondents, the property over which the petitioner claims title as per Ext.P1, is situated in R.S. No. 84, Block No. 19, Ward No. V of Peroorkada Village, whereas the property mentioned in Exts.P8 to P10 is situated in R.S. No. 66 of Peroorkada Village. It is also stated that even in Ext.P17 Award notes the Land Acquisition Officer has stated that the properties are in the joint possession, without being separately demarcated, and therefore, he was not in a position to identify the property. It is also pointed out that even in Ext.P14 issued by the 4th respondent to the Land Acquisition Officer, apart from stating that they have ownership over only 0.12 ares of land, they have not stated about the ownership of the remaining property covered by the notification. On this basis it is stated that the issues raised by the petitioner are to be proved by them and therefore are matters to be considered by the Reference Court.
Having regard to the facts as noticed above, I cannot find fault with the Land Acquisition Officer in completing the acquisition proceedings without issuing notice to the petitioner. There is nothing to indicate that the title, ownership and possession of the property claimed by the petitioner is in relation to the portion of the 0.30 Ares of land under acquisition and mentioned in Exts.P8 to P10 referred to above. There is also nothing to indicate that the property covered by Ext.P1 title deed of the petitioner is part of the property covered by Exts.P8 to P10. Therefore, since the claim raised in respect of 0.18 ares of land mentioned in Exts.P8 to P10 has to be the subject matter of an enquiry under the Land Acquisition Act. I direct the Land Acquisition Officer to deposit the compensation awarded as provided u/s 31 of the Act before the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram.
Having regard to the pendency of the writ petition and the interim orders passed by this Court, it is also directed that it will be open to the petitioner to seek reference u/s 18 of the Act by making an appropriate application within one month from today, in which event, the same shall be considered on merits by the Reference Court.
Needless to say that since the writ petition is now disposed of, the respondents will be free to take possession of the property under acquisition.