IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 3293 of 2008(P)
1. MOHANAN, AGED 51 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. SHEELA LAKSHMANAN,
Vs
1. SASIDHARAN, AGED 52 YEARS,
... Respondent
2. SUDHA, AGED 43 YEARS,
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :04/07/2008
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
----------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO. 3293 of 2008
----------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of July , 2008
JUDGMENT
The Deputy Collector, L.A.A., Thiruvananthapuram, is impleaded
suo motu as additional 4th respondent in this writ petition. The
Registry will carry out corrections in the cause title.
2. The grievance of the petitioners is that because of certain
frivolous claims and objections raised by respondents 1 and 2 over
their properties having an extent of 0.00.57 hecters acquired for the
purpose of widening of Pongumoodu – Medical College Ulloor road,
the additional 4th respondent – the Land Acquisition Officer is not
paying award amount coming to Rs.22,239.54 to the petitioners. It is
conceded by the Government that as per the revenue records the
acquired property stands registered in the name of the petitioners
only. It is stated that because of the claims submitted by respondents
1 and 2 only, it was decided initially that the amounts would be
deposited under Section 31(2) before the Court. The amount is now
held in revenue deposit pursuant to the direction by this court that
the amount should not be deposited under Section 3 1 (2) of the Act.
WPC No. 3293/2008 2
Exts.P1 , P2, P3 ,P5 and also the judgment of this court in F.A. O.
No.297/2005 give strong support to the claim of the petitioners that
they are the absolute owners entitled to the compensation for the
acquired property and that respondents 1 and 2 have no legitimate
claim whatsoever over the properties. Even though notice was served
on respondents 1 and 2 by special messenger deputed by this court
they have not entered appearance in response to the notice. Probably
they would have realised that in the teeth of the documents which
includes several courts’ judgments it will be difficult for them to
substantiate their claims over the property. Under these
circumstances, I am of the view that the award amount should be paid
to the petitioners. I therefore, dispose of this writ petition issuing the
following directions;
i). Respondents 3 and 4 and the additional 4th respondent are
directed to see that the total amount of Rs.2,22,040/- awarded in the
joint names of the petitioners and the first respondent on 19.7.2007 in
L.A.C. 394/2006 be released to the petitioners within two weeks of
their making available a copy of this judgment.
ii). After the cheque issued by the additional 4th respondent
pursuant to the above direction is encashed by the petitioners, the
petitioners will inform the first respondent of such encashment
WPC No. 3293/2008 3
immediately by registered post with acknowledgment due.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
dpk