The court emphasized that compensation for land acquisition is to be deposited, and rightful ownership must be established to contest eviction proceedings.

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 31^st day of March, 2026 Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P3 series issued by the 2^nd respondent demanding him to vacate his property having an extent of 0.34 ares comprised in survey no.1191/5; 0.10 ares comprised in survey no.906/6 and 0.04 ares comprised in survey no.906/9 of Ernakulam Village. The said property was acquired by the 1^st respondent through the 2^nd respondent for the II^nd phase of Atlantis Railway Over Bridge project. An Award was passed and the compensation amount was deposited before the District and Sessions Court, Ernakulam. The name of the 3^rd respondent was also included in the Awardee column. In such circumstances, the petitioner submitted a representation under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 , seeking release of compensation and specifically requesting that he may not be dispossessed until its consideration.

Nevertheless, the 2^nd respondent initiated eviction proceedings against the petitioner, without considering petitioner's representation, is the grievance.

2. Learned Senior Government Pleader, on behalf of the 2^nd respondent, submitted that there is no issue of eviction as the petitioner is not staying in the said property. It was further submitted that the compensation of the land in possession of the petitioner was deposited before the referral court. Since there were no documents in favour of the petitioner to prove the ownership, the structural valuation of the buildings was credited to the petitioner's account. Learned Government Pleader also added that the petitioner is merely trying to delay the land acquisition proceedings, which may affect the interest of the public, besides delaying the project.

3. Learned Standing counsel for the 3^rd respondent submitted that the petitioner has no valid title over the said property and it is the 3^rd respondent, who is the rightful owner of the property. Necessary documents to prove the title of the 3^rd respondent has been produced along with the counter affidavit. The said land was acquired by the 3^rd respondent/G.C.D.A. from the petitioner’s grandfather, one Kunjanbava, for the purpose of Elamkulam West Extension Scheme, and that he was given another property in substitute thereof. However, even after the allotment, the petitioner made unauthorised constructions in the subject property by way of encroachment. Learned counsel also submitted that the right to claim compensation with respect to the subject property vests solely with the

3^rd respondent and not the petitioner.

4. Having heard the respective parties, and taken note of the above-referred facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that there is no ground warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of the said acquisition proceedings. The fact that the structural valuation amount stands credited to the petitioner’s account is not in dispute. Petitioner has the option of producing necessary documents before the competent court seeking disbursement of compensation amount, which has already been deposited. In such circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the liberty of the petitioner to pursue such remedy, as are available to him in law.

Accordingly, the writ petition will stand dismissed.