IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 27135 of 2005(E)
1. SUBBARAYAN CHAKRAPANI EMBRAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY SECRETARY
... Respondent
2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM.
3. SPECIAL THAHSILDAR (LA),
For Petitioner :SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :30/09/2008
O R D E R
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,J.
------------------------
W.P.(C)No.27135 of 2005
------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of September, 2008
JUDGMENT
The grievance voiced by the petitioner is that the
respondent the land acquisition officer without any justifiable
reason kept the compensation amount due for his acquired
properties under revenue deposit. He submits that though the
award was passed as early as on 29/12/2001 and he had
produced his title document relating to the acquired property
earlier, the compensation amount was released to him only on
31/8/2005 and that too pursuant to the judgment of this court in
W.P.(C) No.15134/2005. According to Sri.A.T.Anilkumar,
learned counsel for the petitioner, the title document produced by
the petitioner discloses a clear and marketable title to the
petitioner over the acquired property.
2. Sri.Basant Balaji, the learned Government Pleader would
submit that as per the revenue records, the properties stood in
the name of Sri.Ravi Raman and not in the name of the
WPC.No.27135/2005 2
petitioner. The learned Government Pleader pointed out that
after producing the title document it was necessary to remove
the anomaly of the documents standing in the name of the
petitioner and the revenue records standing in the name of
Sri.Ravi Raman. The petitioner never approached the respondent
till 2005 when he filed W.P.(C) No.15134/2005 before this court.
That writ petition was filed with a prayer that the amount be
directed to be released with interest. This court became
inclined to direct release of only the principal amount. Prayer
for interest was declined.
3. Sri. A.T.Anil Kumar submitted that the very
circumstance that the respondents never thought in terms of
sending a reference under Section 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition
Act will reveal that the government had no serious dispute
regrading the petitioner’s title over the property. He further
submitted that even if the acquiring authority thought that
Sri.Ravi Raman also was interested in the compensation, the
course to be adopted was to issue notice to Sri.Ravi Raman and
then draw up a reference arraying both parties and facilitate
adjudication by the court. The above submission of Sri. Anil
WPC.No.27135/2005 3
Kumar cannot be said to be totally without force. But, I find that
the petitioner had approached this court in 2005 with a prayer
for release of the amount with interest. That prayer was
declined/not granted. May be true that the issue was not
specifically adjudicated by this court. But whatever that be, I do
not think that the petitioner will be justified in invoking writ
jurisdiction of this court again seeking a relief which was
declined or not granted in the earlier writ petition.
This writ petition will stand dismissed. But, this judgment
will not stand in the way of the petitioner approaching a regular
civil court for the relief sought for. If a civil suit is filed by the
petitioner within one month from today, the period between
2/6/2005 and the date of actual filing of the suit will be
excluded from the reckoning under Section 14 of the Limitation
Act for the purpose of limitation.
(PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE)
dpk