The petitioner was one of the co-owners in possession and enjoyment of the property having an extent of 1 Acre 7 cents comprised in Survey Nos.140/1 and 140/2 of Nadathara Village in Thrissur District. The other co-owners are his siblings. Out of the said property an extent of 0.0405 Hectares was acquired for the purpose of widening the National Highway. In terms of the provisions under law an award was passed in L.A.C.No.654 of 2007. Since the amount awarded was meagre according to the land owners the other two co-owners approached the first respondent seeking enhancement of the compensation amount. Admittedly, after considering their contentions an award was passed on 15.6.2013 by the first respondent enhancing the amount of compensation. Pursuant to Ext.P1, the other two co- owners obtained their share over the amount of compensation. The grievance of the petitioner is that his share of the enhanced compensation is yet to be disbursed. In the said circumstances, he filed Ext.P2 petition before the first respondent seeking for an order to disburse his share of the enhanced compensation. It is the inaction on WP(C).No.14092/2014 2 Ext.P2 petition by the first respondent that constrained the petitioner to file the captioned writ petition.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader.
3. The learned Government Pleader brought to my attention the recital in paragraph 4 of Ext.P1 which reads thus:-
“There is another claimant in this case viz.Dr.Paulson, S/o.Joseph, Olekkankal House, P.O.Pavaraty, Thrissur District from whom no application is seen received for arbitration. The claim of this party for enhanced compensation will be duly considered if he files a proper application for Arbitration as required under the NH Act 1956 read with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and the Limitation Act 1963.”
The contention of the petitioner is that he is the other claimant in respect of whom a reference was made in Ext.P1. Obviously, as per Ext.P1, an observation was made that it would be open to the other claimant to file appropriate application for arbitration as required under the NH Act, 1956 read with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Limitation Act, 1963. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the WP(C).No.14092/2014 3 petitioner filed Ext.P2 petition availing the liberty granted vide Ext.P1. It is further submitted that even otherwise, he is entitled to make such application in terms of the relevant provisions. In the light of the observation made in Ext.P1 and taking into account the fact that the petitioner has already approached the first respondent through Ext.P2, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P2 application taking into account Ext.P1 and the relevant provisions of law. This shall be done expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation with respect to the entitlement of the petitioner.
Sd/-
C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS