E. JACOB VARGHESE Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the above writ petition for the following reliefs:

(2.) An Award has been passed by the Sub Court, Thiruvalla, in L.A.R. No.2/2013 (Exhibit P7) and an application for review too rejected (Exhibit P9). The Sub Court is hence functus officio and the reliefs cannot be granted. Only considering the fact that the petitioner appeared in person and argued the case the issue is considered on merits too. It has also to be observed that when a reference has been made under the Land Acquisition Act , 1894 ('Act of 1894' for short), the compensation cannot be decided under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ('Act of 2013' for short).

(3.) The acquisition is of the year 1984 and the petitioner and two of his siblings, being the legal heirs of the original owner of the property, had been before this Court many a time earlier also on the same subject matter. A few judgments of the numerous proceedings have been produced in this writ petition. The grievance now projected by the petitioner, for himself and on behalf of his two siblings, is with respect to the compensation entitled to them for reason of acquisition of 1.62 ares of land. Larger extent was acquired, of which the surviving claim is with respect to the 1.62 Ares acquired. There is also a claim raised with respect to 3.89 Ares, which, according to the petitioner, was rendered useless for reason of the acquisition; entitling the claimants to compensation for that extent also. This claim was never raised before the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO for short). There cannot, hence, be raised any such plea before the reference Court.