JUDGMENT : 1. The dispute in this writ petition concerns 87 cents of land in Old Survey No.1757/B, Sarkara Village, Chirayinkeezh Taluk, Thiruvananthapuram District. The land in question, admittedly, is covered under the Sree Pandaravaka Lands (Vesting and Enfranchisement) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act 20 of 1971”). The case of the petitioners are that their predecessor-in-interest obtained the property as Otti from the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple. The petitioners refer to Exhibit P5, a settlement register of the pandaravaka land. The survey number of land is shown as 1757/B. The extent of the property shown therein is 87 cents. Shorn off unnecessary details, the present controversy now rest on Exhibit P11 order of the Land Revenue Commissioner. The Land Revenue Commissioner, in the said order, took the view that the land has to be treated as Sree Pandaravaka Thanathu land and therefore, the petitioners will have to obtain patta in respect of the above land. The petitioners challenge this decision. Apart from this, there is also an issue as to the identity of the property claimed by the petitioners. According to the petitioners, there is no difficulty to identify the land in the light of the order of the District Collector produced as Exhibit-P8 wherein it is clearly stated that on account of anomalies in resurvey, the property was wrongly shown as puramboke land. 2. As the matter stands now, the Government, treating the property as Government land, gave the said land to the Harbour Engineering Department and it appears to be in their possession. However, in the light of Exhibit-P11, the foremost question that arises for consideration in this case is whether the petitioners are required to obtain a patta in respect of the land claimed by them and as referred in Exhibit-P5 settlement register. This Court have to address this question foremost, in the light of the other issues involved in this matter. 3. The Act 20 of 1971 was enacted to provide for the enfranchisement of Sree Pandaravaka lands held by land-holders. On a scrutiny of the Act, it can be found that there are two counts of land holders. One type of land holders are those who have obtained lease of Sree Pandaravaka Thanathu land from the temple on a kuthakapattom right and the other land holders are those who hold Sree Pandaravaka land under pattom, Otti, Jenmom etc. as referred in Section 2(f). One type of land holders are those who have obtained lease of Sree Pandaravaka Thanathu land from the temple on a kuthakapattom right and the other land holders are those who hold Sree Pandaravaka land under pattom, Otti, Jenmom etc. as referred in Section 2(f). Section 2(j) defines Sree Pandaravaka land as a “land registered as 'Sree Pandaravaka Thanathu' in the revenue records and includes such land held on kuthakapattom”. In respect of Sree Pandaravaka land, Section 3 of the Act 20 of 1971 stipulates that all rights, title and interest of the Temple shall stand extinguished as on the date of enactment and; as far as the Sree Pandaravaka Thanathu land is concerned, the rights so extinguished would be vested with the Government; (See Section 5 of the Act 20 of 1971). In respect of the Sree Pandaravaka land, the proprietory rights would be vested with the land holders. Therefore, it is clear that the land held by a person either under Pattom, Otti, Jenmom, etc would be vested with the land holders as on the date of the enactment. It is only in respect of Sree Pandaravaka Thanathu land, the proprietory right has been divested and vested with the Government as on the date of the enactment; and those who are holding land on kuthakapattom will have to obtain patta from the Government. The question in this case is whether the petitioners need to obtain any patta . In the light of the fact that the land is recorded as Sree Pandaravaka land under Otti, there may not be any difficulty to hold that the holder of such land as referred in Exhibit P5 settlement has become absolute owner of the property in terms of Section 4 of the Act 20 of 1971. Thus, this Court hold that by virtue of Exhibit-P5, the land holders referred therein have become absolute owners of the land and they need not obtain any patta. 4. In this case, the identity assumes importance in the light of the fact that in the survey records, the land is referred as Government land and the Government had already given this land to the Harbour Engineering Department. Essentially, that question arises in the context of anomalies in re-survey. The District Collector was of the view that it is on account of anomalies in re-survey records, it was shown as Government land. Essentially, that question arises in the context of anomalies in re-survey. The District Collector was of the view that it is on account of anomalies in re-survey records, it was shown as Government land. In that circumstances, this Court is of the view that the competent authority in Survey Department shall identify the land as referred in Exhibits P1 and P5 and find out whether the land now handed over to the Harbour Engineering Department is the same land claimed by the petitioners as per Exhibits P1 and P5. This is all the more necessary in the light of the fact that in Exhibit-P11 order, the Land Revenue Commissioner directed the Special Tahsildar to conduct an enquiry as to the identity of the property. 5. If the land in question claimed by the petitioners is as referred in Exhibits P1 and P5 after conducting such survey and demarcation in the same land assigned to the Harbour Engineering Department, certainly, the petitioners would be entitled for all compensation in the light of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, the “Land Acquisition Act, 2013”) as the petitioners submit that they would be satisfied if compensation is paid in according to that Act. Therefore, the following directions are issued: It is declared that the land holders of the property as referred in Exhibits P1 and P5 are absolute holders of the land mentioned therein and they need not obtain any patta in terms of the Act. The land referred in Exhibits P1 and P5 shall be identified by the Assistant Director of Survey after notice to the petitioners and the fourth respondent. This shall be done within a period of two months. If it is found that the land in question now in possession of the Harbour Engineering Department belongs to the petitioners, certainly, the petitioners shall be compensated in terms of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013. The compensation shall be calculated and paid to the petitioners within a further period of three months. The petitioners shall execute necessary deed in favour of the Government on receipt of the compensation. The writ petition is disposed of as above.