IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 29439 of 2006(D)
1. KOTTARUVAM SREE MAHAVISHNUMOORTHY
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD.
... Respondent
2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA),
3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
For Petitioner :SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :29/05/2008
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
-----------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No. 29439 OF 2006
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of May, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is the Kottaruvam Sree Mahavishnumoorthy
Devasthanam. According to them, two items of property belonging to
them has been acquired by the Government for the purposes of
widening of Kasaragod – Kanhangad State Highway. The dispute
forming subject matter of this writ petition is regarding item No.2
which is an extent of 3.882 cents in R.S.125/1B1. According to the
petitioners they are having title over the above item which lies within
their compound wall and a portion of the compound wall is
constructed on that item. The stand of the Government is that the
petitioner does not have any title in respect of the item. That item is
Government AW land belonging to the Government and it is not
necessary for the Government to initiate any land acquisition
proceedings in respect of that item. According to the Government
even without land acquisition proceedings Government is entitled to
utilise that item for the purpose of widening the State Highway. The
grievance of the petitioner is that on the basis of the unsustainable
claim that the said item is Government AW land what the Government
is attempting to do is to disposess the petitioner from the above land
WP(C)N0.29439/06
-2-
which is always been enjoyed by the petitioner as a holding along with
the petitioner’s item No.1 propeprty which is concededly acquired. The
petitioner contends that the property is covered by their title
document. The petitioner has an alternative claim of title by
prescription through adverse possession and limitation. Upon passage
of the award the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 reference application. In
the reference application, specific prayer is made for referring the
question of determination of the compensation in respect of the above
item No.2 property also. The prayer in the writ petition is that a
direction be issued to the Land Acquisition Offficer to allow the
reference application in full. In other words, to make reference not
only in respect of item No.1 property but also in respect of item No.2.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Land Acquisition
Officer wherein the contention is that item No.2 does not belong to the
petitioner but belong to the Government and no land acquisition
proceedings have been initiated or any award was passed in respect of
item No.2. It is accordingly contended that in the absence of any
proceedings or award the petitioner is not entitled to insist on a
reference under section 18.
3. It was persuasive submissions which were addressed by
WP(C)N0.29439/06
-3-
Sri.Krishna Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel
as directed by me drew a sketch showing the lie and location of these
two items of property and placed the same for peprusal. The sketch
would show that the petitioners contention that they were in actual
enjoyment of the property item No.2 lying within their compound wall
is not without force. At the same time I do not think that this court
will be justified under this jurisdiction, in directing the Land Acquisition
Officer to make a reference to the civil court in respect of the property
which is item No.2. Reference under section 18 is contemplated only
where in land acquisition proceedings an award has been passed by
the Land Acquisition Officer and the awardee has become dissatisfied
with the compensation determined. In this case where the definite
stand taken by the Government is that the property is Government
land and that even without land acquisition proceedings Government
can utilise their land for whatever purpose they choose it is not
possible to grant the relief of directing the awarding officer to make a
reference to the court. The grievance of the petitioner, even if
genuine, will have to be got redressed at the hands of a competent
civil court. I dispose of the writ petition directing the petitioners to
voice their grievance before a competent civil court. There will be a
WP(C)N0.29439/06
-4-
direction to the respondents to maintain status quo as regards both
the items which are subject matter of this writ petition (item covered
by the award and the item not covered by the award) for a period of
two months. Ext.P3 reference application to the extent it pertains to
the properties covered by the award is found to be valid and the
awarding officer will make reference to the Land Acquisition Court so
far as the same pertains to the property covered by the award (Item
No.1).
(PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)
ksv/-