No Interference Under Article 226 In Eviction Proceedings When Land Compensation Is Deposited In Competent Court: Kerala High Court

"...there is no ground warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of the said acquisition proceedings." Kerala High Court, in a significant ruling dated March 31, 2026, held that it cannot interfere with eviction proceedings under land acquisition laws once the compensation amount has been deposited before the competent referral court due to title disputes.

A single-judge bench of Justice C. Jayachandran observed that "...there is no ground warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of the said acquisition proceedings," while dealing with a plea challenging eviction notices for the second phase of the Atlantis Railway Over Bridge project.

Background of the Case

The petitioner approached the High Court challenging eviction notices issued by the District Collector regarding the acquisition of his property for the Atlantis Railway Over Bridge project. While the land compensation amount was deposited before the District and Sessions Court due to a dispute over ownership, the petitioner filed a representation under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. He sought the release of compensation and demanded protection from dispossession until his representation was fully considered.

Legal Issues

The primary question before the court was whether eviction proceedings under a land acquisition process could be stalled under writ jurisdiction when the claimant's title is disputed and the compensation amount has already been safely deposited before a referral court.

Court's Observations

The court first examined the submissions of the State regarding the disbursement of structural compensation. It was brought to the court's attention that the petitioner did not possess definitive documents proving ownership of the underlying land. Consequently, while the compensation for the land was deposited before the referral court, the structural valuation of the buildings was directly credited to the petitioner's account. The government contended that the petitioner was merely attempting to delay a public infrastructure project.

"...the structural valuation amount stands credited to the petitioner’s account is not in dispute."

The court then evaluated the competing ownership claims raised by the Greater Cochin Development Authority (GCDA), which asserted absolute title over the subject property. The court recorded the GCDA's submission that the land was originally acquired from the petitioner’s grandfather for the Elamkulam West Extension Scheme, following which substitute property was allotted to him. The authority argued that the petitioner had subsequently made unauthorized constructions on the land by way of encroachment, meaning the right to claim compensation vested solely with the GCDA and not the petitioner.

"...it is the 3rd respondent, who is the rightful owner of the property... even after the allotment, the petitioner made unauthorised constructions in the subject property by way of encroachment."

Weighing the rival title claims and the deposit of the award, the court concluded that the matter did not warrant the exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since the structural valuation was already paid and the land compensation was securely deposited before the District and Sessions Court, the bench ruled that the proper remedy for the petitioner was to establish his title before the referral court rather than stalling the acquisition and eviction process.

"Petitioner has the option of producing necessary documents before the competent court seeking disbursement of compensation amount, which has already been deposited."

Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, refusing to halt the eviction or the infrastructure project. However, the court granted the petitioner the liberty to pursue available legal remedies and produce necessary ownership documents before the competent court to claim the disbursed land compensation.

Date of Decision: 31 March 2026