Title Dispute in Land Acquisition Not for Writ Court; Must Be Decided by Reference Court Under S.64 of 2013 Act: Kerala High Court - 2025-09-08

Kerala High Court Directs Disputed Land Acquisition Compensation to be Deposited in Reference Court

ERNAKULAM: The Kerala High Court, presided over by Justice C. Jayachandran, has ruled that disputes over property titles in land acquisition cases cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. Instead, such matters must be resolved by the appropriate statutory authority, in this case, the reference court under the Land Acquisition Act, 2013.

The Court provided a crucial pathway for the petitioners, ensuring their access to this statutory remedy was not blocked by procedural omissions on the part of the government.

Case Background

The case involved a series of four writ petitions filed by I.R. Bahuleyan & Co. concerning a 6.80-are parcel of land. The petitioners claimed ownership and sought to prevent the government from taking possession of their land without following the due process laid out in the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the '2013 Act').

The government, however, contended that the property in question was already vested with it, and therefore, the petitioners held no valid title. This core dispute over ownership became the central issue. The petitioners also challenged the unilateral cancellation of the property's mutation in their favour by revenue authorities.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner's Stance: The primary argument from I.R. Bahuleyan & Co. was that the acquisition was proceeding illegally without adhering to the mandatory notification requirements under Sections 4 and 11 of the 2013 Act. They pointed out that their property was not listed in the official notifications, which effectively barred them from accessing the statutory remedies available under the Act to contest the acquisition or claim compensation.

Respondent's Stance: The government and the acquiring authority (the 7th respondent) argued that the property was not included in the notifications precisely because they maintained it was already government land. They asserted that since the petitioners had no title, there was no need to formally acquire the land from them.

Court's Analysis and Ruling

Justice C. Jayachandran clarified the jurisdictional limits of the High Court in such matters, stating, "This Court is of the opinion that the issue with respect to title, in respect of the property sought to be acquired, cannot be agitated in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution."

However, the Court recognized the procedural deadlock faced by the petitioners. Since their property was not mentioned in the acquisition notifications, they were unable to approach the reference court under Section 64 of the 2013 Act to establish their claim. The judgment noted this as "a situation which can be remedied under Article 226 of the Constitution."

To resolve the impasse and safeguard the interests of all parties while allowing the acquisition to proceed, the Court issued the following directions:

1. Deposit of Compensation: The 7th respondent was directed to deposit the compensation amount corresponding to 2.78 ares of the disputed land before the reference court (District Court, Ernakulam) as per Section 64 of the 2013 Act.
2. Access to Remedy: The Court explicitly recognized the petitioners' right to approach the reference court under Section 64 to establish their title and claim the deposited amount, along with any other remedies available under the 2013 Act.
3. Independent Adjudication: The reference court was instructed to adjudicate the petitioners' claim on its own merits, "untrammeled by the fact that the mutation in favour of the petitioners has been cancelled."

Final Decision

The High Court disposed of the writ petitions by creating a clear procedural path forward. While upholding the principle that title disputes must be handled by the statutory reference court, it used its writ jurisdiction to ensure the petitioners could access that very forum. The petitioners were also given the liberty to separately challenge the cancellation of mutation through appropriate statutory channels. The order effectively balances the government's need to proceed with acquisition while protecting the individual's right to a fair hearing on their property claims.