Mr.Mohan Kumar vs The Guruvayur Dewaswom … on 1 December, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 24102 of 2010(K)


1. MR.MOHAN KUMAR, MANNIKKATH HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE GURUVAYUR DEWASWOM COMMISSIONER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE CHAIRMAN, GURUVAYUR DEWASWOM

3. ADMINISTRATOR,

4. THE GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM EDUCATIONAL

5. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA)

6. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE,

7. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE,

8. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY,

                For Petitioner  :SMT.K.LATHA

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN

 Dated :01/12/2010

 O R D E R
             THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &
                        P. BHAVADASAN, JJ.
                    -------------------------------------------
                     W.P(C).No.24102 OF 2010
                    -------------------------------------------
             Dated this the 1st day of December, 2010


                               JUDGMENT

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

Petitioner’s lands were acquired under the provisions of the

Land Acquisition Act for public purpose, to wit, need of the

Guruvayoor Devaswom to have further land for the purpose of a

CBSE school under one of its trusts. The plea of the petitioner

now is against the acquisition proceedings on the premise that in

the acquisition, while he is being given land value only at the

1999 rate, the beneficiaries of Ext.P8 review petition order are

likely to get the market price at the point of time of

dispossession. As of now, the acquisition is completed and

award has been passed. Obviously therefore, the acquisition

cannot be challenged. At the request of the petitioner, a

reference has also been made to the court. This means all

matters relating to the claim for enhancement of compensation

have to be agitated before that court. The petitioner further

WPC.24102/10

2

point out that dissatisfied by Ext.P8, the beneficiaries therein

had taken up the matter to the Apex Court and Ext.P16 order of

the Apex Court contains a direction that the case of the

petitioners therein be considered by a committee. That direction

was made by the Apex court on the submission by the writ

petitioners therein that the Guruvayoor Devaswom has

constituted a committee to look into the grievances of the land

owners whose lands have been acquired. If the petitioner is

entitled to have his claim looked into again by that committee

and if he has made appropriate application for such purpose or if

any application by him is likely to be considered by that

committee, that could be done in accordance with law. However,

the petitioner having appropriate remedy by prosecuting the

land acquisition reference stated to have been also made, we do

not find any ground to entertain this writ petition and grant any

relief, it having been found that a writ petition against an

acquisition proceedings will not lie after issuance of the award.

It is clarified that the claim of the petitioner, if any, that he is

also entitled to the benefits, if any, of the direction of the Apex

WPC.24102/10

3

Court is a matter which he may urge before the reference court

to be decided in accordance with law. We leave open the

contentions of the Guruvayoor Devaswom, the petitioner and the

State in the LAR. The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
Judge.

Sd/-

P.BHAVADASAN,
Judge.

kkb.4/12.