The government cannot be compelled to acquire its own land, and disputes over title to government land are not referable under Sections 30 or 31 of the Land Acquisition Act.

Whether Government can be compelled to acquire land which is/was vested in it or over which it got a pre-existing right or interest? Whether a dispute as to pre-existing right or interest of the State Government in the property sought to be acquired is a dispute capable of being adjudicated upon or referred to the Civil Court for determination under Section 30 or 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? Whether a person in possession of government puramboke can claim that he perfected the title over the same and claim for a reference of the said question under section 30 or 31 of the LA Act when proceedings are initiated to conduct its survey and demarcation, especially in the absence of initiation of acquisition proceedings and passing of an award under section 11 of the LA Act? These questions crop up for consideration in the captioned Writ Petition in the following factual backdrop:-The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner in possession of 17 cents of registered holding together with 3 cents of government puramboke land and an old building thereon, in survey Nos. 572/7/1, 572/7/2 and 304/1/2 of Thodupuzha village. According to the petitioner, she purchased the said properties as per Ext.P1 registered sale deed and the description of the property in Ext.P1 takes in government puramboke land having an extent of 3 cents as virivu, as well. It is the contention of the petitioner that the said extent of government puramboke land has been in the possession and enjoyment of her predecessors-in-interest uninterruptedly, openly, peacefully as of right and hostile to the whole world including the Government from 1952 onwards. A notification dated 21.9.2004 under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued in connection with the development of Ponkunnam-Thodupuzha road. An extent of .2551 Ares of land in survey No.572 was acquired from the possession of the petitioner pursuant to the said notification. Ext.P2 notice dated 10.12.2004 was served on the petitioner in connection with the said acquisition. Subsequently, the Taluk Surveyor, Thodupuzha served Ext.P3 notice dated 17.9.2010 to the petitioner in terms of Form No.6 of Chapter XIV of Survey Manual. The petitioner was intimated that a survey would be conducted to fix the road puramboke in survey No.572/7/1 based on the instruction from Assistant Engineer, P.W.D. The petitioner was also informed that the subdivisions noted below thereunder would be taken up for demarcation and survey on 25.9.2010 or soon after and she was required to render necessary help by clearing the thicket, during the survey. For further particulars the petitioner was advised to apply to the Taluk Surveyor assuring all reasonable assistance in the matter from him. Evidently, in this case, the very case of the petitioner herself is that 3 cents of government puramboke is in her possession and that she perfected its title by adverse possession. It is not the case of the petitioner that the said extent of government puramboke in her possession, has now, been included in Section 4(1) notification issued under the LA Act or that it formed part of .2551 Ares acquired from her possession after following the procedures for acquisition. What was actually proposed under Ext.P3 is only survey and demarcation of the boundaries of the property to demarcate the puramboke. Thus, it is evident that as on today, it is not involved in any acquisition proceedings under the LA Act. Ext.P3 was followed by Ext.P4 notice dated 11.10.10 from the second respondent informing her that the boundary of the road near her property was already demarcated by the revenue authorities and, therefore, requested her to hand over possession of government puramboke to the Department for the purpose of construction of road. The petitioner submitted Ext.P5 objection pursuant to the receipt of Ext.P4 and in such circumstances, it could not be construed as an objection raised in a land acquisition proceedings. In Ext.P5, the petiti