Ownership claims must be substantiated by credible title documents, and courts should ensure thorough investigations of property boundaries to avoid erroneous judgments.

JUDGMENT

The issue involved in this appeal is the rival claims raised by the appellants and the 1^st respondent over an amount of Rs.14,76,912/-, which the Land Acquisition Authorities deposited before the Additional Sub Court at Thalassery (mentioned as Reference Court hereafter, for convenience), in connection with the acquisition of an extent of 0.4828 Hectors (119 cents) comprised in Re-Survey No.27/3 of Keezhallur Village in Thalassery Taluk, for the purpose of Kannur Airport.

2. An extent of 4 acres 92 cents of land comprised in Re-Survey No.27/3 of Keezhallur Village, which belonged to the 1^st respondent, was purchased directly by KINFRA, in connection with the construction of Kannur Airport. However, a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short “L.A Act”) was made in respect of the compensation amount of 1 acre and 19 cents of land, which was said to be held by 1^st respondent along with the abovesaid 4 acre and 92 cents, for the reason that the 1^st respondent failed to produce title documents before the Acquisition Authority to convince his right over the said property. According to the 1^st respondent, the abovesaid 1 acre and 19 cents formed part of the total extent of 5 acres and 05 cents held by him right from the year 1986. It is stated that the 1^st respondent holds a total extent of 6 acres 11 cents of land there, which exist contiguously within well-defined boundaries. The split particulars of derivation of title of the abovesaid 6 acres and 11 cents claimed by the 1^st respondent are as follows :

i. An extent of 5 acres and 5 cents was purchased by the 1^st respondent from the persons by name Abuthali and Mammad by virtue of sale deed No.2260/1986 of SRO, Mattannur. Though the extent of land mentioned in the above sale deed was only 3 acres and 86 cents, the actual extent which was handed over to the 1^st respondent was 5 acres and 5 cents.

ii. An extent of 45 cents was purchased by the 1^st respondent by virtue of sale deed No.1023/1993 of SRO, Mattannur.

iii. An extent of 15 cents was purchased by the 1^st respondent by virtue of sale deed No.2270/1994 of SRO, Mattannur.

iv. An extent of 46 cents was purchased by the 1^st respondent by virtue of sale deed No.787/2007 of SRO, Mattannur.

3. According to the 1^st respondent, the compensation amount deposited by the acquisition authorities in respect of the abovesaid 1 acre and 19 cents has to be given to him since the above land has been remaining under his absolute title and possession ever since 1986, when he purchased the 5 acre and 5 cents as stated in item No.i above.

4. The appellants strongly disputed the claim of the 1^st respondent over the 1 acre and 19 cents, in respect of which the acquisition authority, being unable to trace title, had deposited the compensation amount before the Reference Court. The appellants trace their right over the said property from the partition decree in O.S.No.247 of 1947 of the Munsiff’s Court, Koothuparamba. According to the appellants, an extent of 4 acres shown as ‘D’ plot in Plan V was allotted to defendant Nos.103 and 104 of the said suit, who are said to be the predecessors-in- interest of the claimant No.2 and claimant No.3 in LAR No.130 of 2013 of the Additional Sub Court, Thalassery (Reference Court). Since claimant No.2 died during the pendency of the above proceedings, additional claimants 7 to 10 were impleaded as his legal representatives. The appellants herein are claimant No.3 and additional claimant Nos.7 to 10 in LAR No.130 of 2013 of the Additional Sub Court, Thalassery. It