Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 47275
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J
SASI KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 38291 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: G.SANTHOSH KUMAR, AKHIL R. MENON
For the Respondents: R.RAJESH KORMATH
Court ruled that prior judgments on compensation distribution must be followed, emphasizing the importance of timely legal action by petitioners.
Headnote:(A) Mandamus - An order forbidding government officials from disbursing compensation until resolution of appeal - Legal rights concluded by prior judgments concerning partition and compensation distribution among family members established - Writ dismissed as not sustaining against legitimate claimants. (Paras 2-6)
(B) Rights to compensation - Proper adjudication of property claims based on historical context necessary for legitimate disbursal - Previous court judgments delineate compensation distribution - Laches observed in the petitioners’ actions causing unnecessary delays. (Paras 3-6)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners sought a mandamus against government officials disbursing compensation based on an earlier Land Acquisition Reference, which was contested due to ongoing litigations regarding property ownership. Respondents countered with claims of established rights and distributions per earlier rulings.
Findings of Court:
Sub Court directed to disburse compensation consistent with established rulings pending appeal outcome to safeguard primary rights of all parties involved, noting significant delays in petitioners' actions.
Issues: The primary issue was the legitimate claim to compensation and the proper distribution among claimants under previous rulings, considering the laches of the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: Court held that existing judgments regarding compensation entitlements must be adhered to and any further delay by petitioners in initiating proceedings would misleadingly deny rightful claimants their due.
Result: Writ petition disposed of with directions for disbursal subject to appeals.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court must balance rights in compensation disputes pending resolution. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. claims by petitioners were framed to obstruct rightful compensation disbursal. (Para 3) |
| 3. current disputes delayed compensation disbursal. (Para 4) |
| 4. compensation disbursal must align with existing rulings and pending appeals. (Para 5) |
| 5. writ petition disposed of, maintaining compensation claim process. (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 8th day of October, 2025
The petitioners seek a mandamus to respondents/Government officials not to disburse the compensation amount as per Ext.P3 judgment in L.A.R.No.114/2000 of the Sub Court, Manjeri, till disposal of the Regular First Appeal on merits, in respect of which M.J.C.No.129/2024 is pending. Another Writ is sought, directing respondents 1 and 2 to deposit the amount covered by Ext.P3 before the Sub Court, Manjeri, until final adjudication of the R.F.A. and the M.J.C.
2. Opposing this Writ Petition, it was first pointed out by the learned Senior Government Pleader that the amount has already been deposited as directed by this Court vide judgment in O.P.No.4504/2000. It was also pointed out by the learned Senior Government Pleader that Ext.P3 concluded the rights of the parties, when an Award was passed in L.A.R.No.114/2000. In that judgment, there was a direction to divide the compensation on the basis of the shares awarded in the decree in a partition suit. Therefore, nothing further can be done in the instant Writ Petition, where the Government officials alone have been made a party. The dispute is between the individual parties, and the amount has already been deposited. There has been no laches or failure of duty on the part of the respondent officials, so as to enable issuance of a Mandamus. On such premise, learned Senior Government Pleader would seek the Writ Petition to be dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for respondents 5 and 26 would submit that this Writ Petition was in fact a clandestine mode to prevent the money being disbursed to the legitimate owners, as could be seen from the fact that the Writ Petition was filed with the Government officials alone in the party array, without impleading the necessary parties. On facts, learned counsel would point out that a partition suit was filed as early as on 1992, as O.S.No.162/1992, before the Sub Court, Manjeri. The partition suit preferred by respondents 5 and 26, as also, by other members of the family, was resisted by the present petitioners and their mother, who set up a claim of exclusive title under Ext.P1 purchase certificate. The claim set up by the present petitioners was rejected by virtue of Ext.R5(a) judgment, and the partition suit was allowed. In holding so, it was found that the purchase certificate obtained by the petitioners would inure to the benefit of all the sharers of the 'tharavadu'. The operative portion of Ext.R5(a) judgment would take stock of the fact that the property has already been acquired and hence not liable to be divided by metes and bounds amongst the sharers. All what can be divided is the compensation amount, for which purpose the shares of each member of the family has been specified in the judgment and decree. The present petitioners carried an appeal, bearing R.F.A.No.318/2004 before this Court. However, after 18 years and 6 months, the R.F.A. was dismissed vide Ext.P2 judgment for the reason that the appellants therein (petitioners herein) failed to take steps against the respondents. Ext.P2 judgment dismissing R.F.A was rendered on 17.01.2023. An M.J.C, bearing no. 129/2024, was filed with delay, which is still pending. In that M.J.C also, notice was ordered on 04.09.2024. However, as on 26.09.2024 (the date on which respondents 5 and 26 filed counter), steps, that too defective, have been taken only against some of the respondents. Learned counsel for respondents 5 and 26 would submit that, by virtue of Ext.R5(a) judgment in the partition suit, followed by Ext.P3 judgment in the Land Acqu
