IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 31229 of 2009(W)
1. SUHARABI,W/O.LATE BARE ABOOBACKER HAJI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LAND ACQUISITION,
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,KASARAGOD.
For Petitioner :SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :03/11/2009
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C).No.31229 of 2009-W
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2009.
JUDGMENT
“CR”
1.Petitioner applied for re-determination of
compensation under Section 28A(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894. That was rejected as time-
barred. Hence, this writ petition.
2.Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned
Government Pleader.
3.Petitioner applied on 20th November, 2004 relying
on an award passed by the Court on 21st August,
2004.
4.Section 28A(1) of the LA Act provides that the
written application under that provision shall be
made within three months from the date of the
WPC31229/09 -: 2 :-
award of the court. The word ‘month’ is not
defined in the LA Act. Therefore, the definition
of that term in Section 3(35) of the General
Clauses Act, 1897 applies. Hence, the month has
to be reckoned according to the British calendar.
Therefore, the period of three months for the
purpose of an application under Section 28A(1)
has to be reckoned according to the British
calendar, applying Section 3(35) of the General
Clauses Act. By the proviso to Section 28A(1) of
the LA Act, the date of pronouncement of the
award by the court shall be excluded in computing
the period of three months.
5.The award of court relied on by the petitioner
was delivered on 21st August, 2004. Therefore,
the period of three months for the petitioner to
apply under Section 28A(1) on the basis of the
award relied on by her ends on 22nd November,
2004. The petitioner’s application filed on 20th
November, 2004 was, therefore, well within time.
Hence, the impugned order does not stand.
WPC31229/09 -: 3 :-
6.In the result, Ext.P5 is quashed and the first
respondent is directed to take up the application
of the petitioner and render decision on it, on
merits.
The writ petition is allowed as above.
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE.
Sha/181109