IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the competent authority has the power to direct the deposit of compensation amount and adjudicate the apportionment of compensation among the interested parties under Section 64 of the Act 2013.

JUDGMENT :

VIJU ABRAHAM, J.

1. The petitioners have approached this Court challenging Ext.P6 order issued by the 3rd respondent and for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to deposit the awarded compensation before the 3rd respondent authority for apportionment between petitioners and the 4th respondent.

2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

The petitioners are the children of the 4th respondent, born in his first marriage and the 4th respondent is currently living separately from the petitioners, with his second wife. The father of the 4th respondent had obtained 5.29 Acres of land as per Purchase Certificate No. 2484/1977 of Land Tribunal, Coyalmannam and he assigned this property to the 3rd respondent as per Settlement Deed No. 664/1981 of Palakkad SRO. The 4th respondent has also obtained another 1.7542 hectares of land as per Purchase Certificate No. 2238/1975 dated 22.11.1975 issued by Special Tahasildar, Land Tribunal, Coyalmannam. The above two properties were subjected to land acquisition by respondents 1 and 2, for the purpose of development of Bangalore - Cochin Industrial Corridor. The claim of the petitioners is that they belong to Vaniya Christians and they are governed by Hindu Mitakshara Law. Ext.P1 is the certificate issued in this regard by the parish priest. On the basis of the same, it is contended that the petitioners have a right in these properties acquired by respondents 1 and 2, which are joint family properties of the 4th respondent and the petitioners have right in these properties by birth, under Mitakshara Law, and it cannot be singularly dealt by the 4th respondent alone. Yet another contention raised by the petitioners is that the purchase certificate issued in the name of the head of the family, is for the whole family, and not just for the allotted individual. The petitioners being joint family members, and also being cultivating tenants in possession of the property assigned under the Land Reforms Act, are entitled to a share in compensation for their right, when these properties are acquired by respondents 1 and 2. Highlighting all these factual and legal aspects, the 2nd petitioner has filed Ext.P2 representation before the 2nd respondent Collector, to deposit the awarded compensation amount to the notified Authority, under Section 64, for apportionment. When steps were not taken by the 2nd respondent, the petitioners preferred Ext.P3 application to the Authority/District Court, under Section 64(1) Second Proviso of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as Act 2013) [mistakenly written in Ext.P3 as filed under Section 72 of the Act 2013], to direct the Collector to deposit the amount before the court and the same is numbered as OP(Land Acquisition) No. 100/2023 of District Court Palakkad. To Ext.P3, the 4th respondent filed Ext.P4 objection and the 2nd respondent also filed a statement as Ext.P5. The 3rd respondent, on a wrongful procedure, without taking any evidence or conducting trial, but on an absolute erroneous appreciation of pleadings alone, dismissed the petitioners' application with cost as per Ext.P6 order and it is aggrieved by the said dismissal that the petitioners have approached this Court.

3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent wherein it is contended that he is the absolute owner and in possession of the properties in question and that the 4th respondent has given 1 Acre of land each to the petitioners through settlement deeds towards their share which was also acquired by the 2nd respondent for Kochi - Bangalore Industrial Corridor and they have also received the compensation amount. The petitioners after receipt of the compensation demanded more money and filed a petition before the 2nd respondent demanding proportionate shares, which has been rejected by the 2nd respondent. It is further contended that there is no