ST. MARYS SOCIETY CHERUKOLE Vs. ALPHONSE ALEXANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a society registered for the welfare of the traditional fishermen with a view to expand the activities of the society by establishing a cold storage and processing of fish, they required additional land, to the extent of 8.27 Ares. For that purpose, they made a request to the Government to initiate land acquisition proceedings. Pursuant to that, a notification under S.3(1) of the Act was published on 2.10.1973, followed by another notification dated 29.3.1981. After series of litigations, the fifth respondent passed an award on 5.8.1989. Since there was dispute between the parties regarding the compensation to be shared and enhancement was claimed, a reference was made under S.18 and 30 of the Act to the sixth respondent. The said reference was numbered as L.A.R. No. 275 of 1989. The sixth, respondent, by Ext. P1 judgment elated 30.3.1994, allowed enhancement of the land value at Rs. 4,7187- per Are with solatium and interest. It is the case of the petitioner that no evidence was adduced on the side of the State of Kerala and the total liability as per Ext. P1 judgment is more than Rs. 1,00,000/- which has to be borne by the petitioner, for whose benefit the acquisition was ordered.

(2.) According to the petitioner, the society was not aware of the reference made to the land acquisition court, trial of the case and passing of Ext. P1 judgment till a communication was received by the petitioner issued by the fifth respondent directing them to make available the enhanced compensation as per Ext. P1 judgment. The communication is dated 3.11.1994. It is revealed from the said communication that the State intends to file an appeal against the judgment and decree. It is the further case of the petitioner that they were not informed about the reference since they were not made parties in the said proceedings. According to the petitioner, they are interested in the land acquisition proceedings and in the matter of passing of the award. According to them, they are proper and necessary parties to be heard m the matter. Even though the petitioner is entitled to file an appeal against Ext. P1 judgment and decree and got itself impleaded when the appeal is pending, adequate reliefs may not be available to them in the absence of evidence against the enhancement of compensation. Hence the petitioner challenges the validity of Ext. P1 judgment and decree before this court in this proceeding, under Art.226 of the Constitution. According to the petitioner, Ext. P1 is vitiated by error of law and hence liable to be interfered with by this court. The petitioner therefore, seeks for the issuance of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ quashing Ext. P1 and also for a writ of prohibition restraining respondents 1 to 4 from initiating execution proceedings for realisation of the amount due under the decree in Ext. P1.

(3.) I heard counsel for the petitioner as well as the Government pleader, on whom a copy of the original petition was served.