AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.—Notice to respondents 3 and 4 is dispensed with preserving their right to seek rehearing of this writ petition, if aggrieved. Learned Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 1 and 2.
An item of land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. According to the petitioner, she is also entitled to a share following the law of succession and certain agreements held by her. She says that she is also a heir of the person to whom the land originally belonged and who is now no more. These are issues which could be considered only by a reference court in terms of the LA Act. Apparently, the claim made by the petitioner cannot be demonstrated with reference to any registered document. This situation appears to have weighed with the Collector under the Act to assume that she has no documentary evidence for the claim made by her. Under such circumstances, it is ordered that the petitioner''s application, Ext.P4, will be taken up for consideration and if the rival claim to title is not resolved on consensus, the matter has to go to the Reference Court u/s 31 of the LA Act. In such event, it shall be ensured that the amounts are not disbursed by the Tahsildar and that shall be deposited before the Reference Court. Let it be so done. Writ petition is ordered accordingly.