The petitioner claims to be the purchaser of an item of property in court auction as per Ext.P1. The said property is the subject matter of land acquisition proceedings initiated by Ext.P2. According to the petitioner, he is not being paid the compensation for the land acquired as the owner thereof. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking the following reliefs: i. To issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing to the respondents to issue notice to the petitioner as envisaged under the land acquisition proceedings in pursuance to Ext.P2 notification and hear him and provide the legal benefits entitled to him as onwner in possession and enjoyment of item No.80 property of Ext.P2 by conducting business therein, in view of Exts.p1 andP4.
ii. Issue further directions to the the 2nd respondent to grant the petitioner the benefits assured in Ext.P3 to others like him;
iii. To grant such other and further reliefs as deemed fit to be granted by this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the above case; and
iv. To award costs of this proceedings.
2. According to the counsel for the petitioner, Smt.M.A.Zohra, the petitioner is the owner of the property in question, having purchased the same in court auction. Reliance is placed on Ext.P5 possession certificate to contend that, as per the said certificate, the owner of the property was one Gopalakrishnan Nair. It is contended that Ext.P5 clearly shows that the property was not Puramboke land, but private property. That is the reason why, proceedings were initiated against the same in execution proceedings, by the Principal Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram and sold in auction. The petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the property ever since. The notification under section 4(1), Ext.P2, has been issued treating the property as private property. It is only thereafter, a contention has been raised that the property is Village Puramboke. The said contention is according to the counsel, mischievous, not based on any records and unsustainable. Therefore, the counsel seeks the issue of appropriate directions for the award of compensation to the petitioner.
3. A statement has been filed on behalf of the fourth respondent. According to the statement, the property under acquisition had been surveyed and it was found that the land was Puramboke land. It is for the said reason that, no compensation has been awarded to the petitioner.
4. A separate statement has been filed by the Standing Counsel for the Thiruvananthapuram Development Authority (TRIDA for short). The stand of the second respondent is that, the property of the petitioner comprised in Sy.No.1002 of Vanchiyoor Village has not been taken over by TRIDA till now. The land required for widening was taken possession of by the Revenue authorities after proper land acquisition proceedings and was handed to TRIDA. It is also assured that, if the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the rehabilitation scheme, the same would be extended to him. The counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner has already been given the benefits of rehabilitation.
5. Heard. The claim of the petitioner is that, he is the owner of the property in Sy.No.1002 of Vanchiyoor Village. The petitioner relies on Ext.P5 possession and valuation certificate dated 8.7.2002 to contend that he has ownership over the property. However, Ext.P5 is only a possession and valuation certificate it cannot confer any right of ownership on the petitioner. The same only shows that one Gopalakrishnan Nair was in possession and enjoyment of 00.306 cents of land comprised in Sy.No.1002 of Vanchiyoor Village. The number of a patta is also shown in Ext.P5. However, no such patta is produced before me. At best, what Ext.P5 can show is only that Gopalakrishnan Nair had possession over 00.306 cents of land in Sy.No.1002 of Vanchiyoor Village. As rightly pointed out by the counsel appearing for the TRIDA, in Ext.P1 the person shown as judgment debtor is one Jayaram. It is not clear who the said Jayaram is. Considering that the extent of property is very small, it is not clear whether Ext.P5 relates to the property over which the petitioner claims ownership.
6. It is true that, as per Ext.P1 an extent of 00.306 squire links of land in Sy.No.1002 of Vanchiyoor Village has been auctioned in favour of the petitioner. If the judgment debtor had no title over the property, Ext.P1 also cannot confer any title on the petitioner. Therefore, the question as to whether the petitioner has title over the property in question, as claimed, would have to be determined on the basis of cogent evidence. On the records available in this case, it is not possible to conclude either way. The identity of the property is not established. There is no title document produced before me. A claim is made on behalf of the State, that the property is Village Puramboke. Therefore, I am not satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in this writ petition.
For the above reasons, this writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, dismissal of the writ petition shall not prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to seek appropriate reliefs, in a Civil Court.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
rkc.