The claim and contention of the petitioner is that his father Anandan was the owner in possession of property having an extent of 4 acres and 87 cents comprised in Resurvey No.27 of Keezhallur Village. Admittedly, the aforesaid property was included as an item for acquisition for the purpose of Kannur Airport. It is the contention of the petitioner that an extent of 4.67 acres of land comprised in Resurvey No. 27 of the Keezhallur village was acquired from the possession of his father for the aforesaid purpose. At the same time, the petitioner did not have a case that the said extent was acquired without following the proper procedures prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act'). His grievance is that at the time of the acquisition of the aforesaid property comprised in the aforesaid resurvey number balance 20 cents were left unacquired as it lies in Resurvey No.86/1 of the Keezhallur Village. Later, coming to know about the same the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 lawyer notice and the same was responded by the respondents through Ext.P5 dated 31.3.2013. In Ext.P5 the first respondent specifically stated that neither the petitioner nor his father had any property in Resurvey No.86/1 of Keezhallur Village and therefore, the objection of the petitioner requires no consideration. It is in the said circumstances that this writ petition has been filed mainly seeking the following prayers:- “a) writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ order or direction, directing the Respondents to make a reference as provided u/s 30 of the Land Acquisition Act regarding the objection made in respect pf 20 cents of property owned and possessed by the petitioner's father Anandan on the strength of Exts.P1 to P3.
b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the Respondents to pass an award granting compensation for acquisition of property having an extent of 20 cents comprised in RS No.86/1 of Keezhallur village acquired from the ownership and possession of the petitioner's father.”
2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent. The claims and contentions of the petitioner have been refuted by the first respondent in the counter affidavit. It is specifically stated therein that the petitioner or his father was not having any property in Resurvey No.86/1 of Keezhallur Village. It is also stated that the land comprised in Resurvey No.86/1 viz., 61.6284 hectares was acquired by negotiated purchase, the balance extent of 30.2998 hectares were acquired after passing an award. It is also stated therein that the compensation for the entire land acquired from the aforesaid resurvey number was issued either by directly or through the Sub Court after depositing the same under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. In paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the compensation of the land lying within the aforesaid resurvey number having no clear title was deposited in the Sub Court, Thalassery under section 30 of the Act. Neither the petitioner nor his father or anybody had claimed the possession of any land in Resurvey No.86/1 of Keezhallur Village before passing of award or any time prior to the issuance of Ext.P4 notice. Thus, it is obvious that the claim of the petitioner that from the possession of his father 20 cents of land lying in Resurvey No.86/1 of Keezhallur Village was acquired was categorically denied by the respondents and stated that neither the petitioner nor his father had any property in the aforesaid survey number. The said contention taken up by the first respondent in the counter affidavit as not refuted by the petitioner by the reply affidavit. In otherwords, the contention of the first respondent even now remains undisputed. In the said circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs sought for in this writ petition and this writ petition is liable to fail and accordingly it is dismissed.
Sd/-
C.T.RAVIKUMAR,JUDGE.
dlk