DEVASSY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An extent of 0.0235 Hectors (2.35 Ares) of land belonging to the petitioner in Sy.No.51/2-6 of Muringur Thekkemuri Village in Mukundapuram Taluk was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act by the State for public purpose namely for the formation of an approach road to Railway overbridge at Koratty. Though this land form part of the large extent of 8.25 cents and the petitioner wanted the entire land to be acquired, the same was not accepted. However, in respect of the land acquired and taken possession of, an award was eventually passed. It is the case of the petitioner that the award amount was received by him under protest and two other neighbouring properties were also acquired and the awarded amount was received by them on the same day. On the same day, reference application was also filed separately by all the parties. Though the reference application claiming enhancement submitted by the neighbours were referred to the Civil court, the petitioner's application was not considered. Petitioner later came to know of this and submitted a representation before the Tahsildar concerned. He also produced affidavits by the other two neighbours to support his case that reference application was actually filed by him also. The Tahsildar by Ext.P5 before whom the reference application was filed, after considering the affidavit came to the conclusion that the reference application submitted by the petitioner though not seen in the file, is a case of misplacement and opined that his request should also be referred for enhancement to the said court and sought approval from the District Collector. Exhibit P5 is the report submitted by the Tahsildar in this regard dated 26.7.06. Exhibit P5 reads thus:

(2.) The District Collector by Exhibit P6 accorded approval for referring the matter to the Sub court, Exhibit P6 is dated 14.8.06. It reads as follows: But still nothing was done in the matter. Hence this writ petition is filed.

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed for and on behalf of the respondents, they have taken the stand that the reference said to be filed by the petitioner is not seen in the file. There is no dispute that said application is not seen in the file. So the question is as to whether it was actually filed by the petitioner and subsequently misplaced by the office. The primary authority before whom the application is filed has already submitted report Exhibit P5 seeking approval from the higher authorities to refer the matter accepting the affidavit filed by the neighbouring owners. The District Collector has also accorded approval accepting the report.