KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have approached this Court challenging Ext.P6 order issued by the 3rd respondent and for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to deposit the awarded compensation before the 3rd respondent authority for apportionment between petitioners and the 4th respondent.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

(3.) A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 4 th respondent wherein it is contended that he is the absolute owner and in possession of the properties in question and that the 4 th respondent has given 1 Acre of land each to the petitioners through settlement deeds towards their share which was also acquired by the 2nd respondent for Kochi - Bangalore Industrial Corridor and they have also received the compensation amount. The petitioners after receipt of the compensation demanded more money and filed a petition before the 2nd respondent demanding proportionate shares, which has been rejected by the 2 nd respondent. It is further contended that there is no dispute in respect of the claim and raised question of jurisdiction under Sec. 77(2) of the Act 2013 and further contended that the District Court has no jurisdiction to issue direction to the 2nd respondent to deposit the compensation amount. It is also contended that the stand taken by the petitioners that they belong to Vaniya Christian Community cannot be accepted in the light of Ext.R4(i) caste certificate issued by the Village Officer, Puthussery Central Village, Palakkad stating that the petitioners as well as the 4th respondent belongs to Latin Christian Community. It is also contended by the 4th respondent that the right of the petitioners to get a share in the acquired property belonging to the 4th respondent is a disputed fact, which can only be adjudicated by a competent Civil Court and they cannot approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and further that the District Court, Palakkad, the authority has rejected the request of the petitioners as per Ext.P6 and the same is in accordance with law and no interference is called for by this Court. Yet another contention raised by the learned counsel for the 4th respondent is that an application under Sec. 64 of the Act, 2013 will be applicable only after the passing of the award and in the present case, the 2nd respondent has not passed an award and therefore, the application under Sec. 64 of the Act 2013 will not lie.