IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 6783 of 2010(W)
1. B.LALITHA BAI, T.C.24/136, SHASTHAG-
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.R.MANOJ
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :08/04/2010
O R D E R
P.BHAVADASAN, J.
————————————-
WP(C) No.6783 of 2010
————————————-
Dated 8th April 2010
Judgment
In this Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, the prayer made by the petitioner is to
take back LAR No.39/04 on file and dispose of the same in
accordance with law.
2. Two acres of land situated in Survey
No.149/10 of Vizhinjam village along with buildings and
trees thereon, were acquired by the State for the
construction of Kovalam-Neyyattinkara-Byepass Road, for
which compensation was awarded. Dissatisfied with the
compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the
petitioner moved a reference as LAR No.39/04 before the
Sub Court, Neyyattinkara, which was posted to
24.05.2006. Since the petitioner was not well, he could not
appear before the Court on the said date. Consequently,
the reference was dismissed and the award passed by the
Land Acquisition Officer was confirmed. A copy of the
WPC 6783/10 2
order so passed is produced as Ext.P2. Immediately, the
petitioner filed a restoration application, namely, IA No.792
of 2006. Unfortunately, there was a delay of 50 days in
filing the said IA. Therefore, the Court below directed the
petitioner to pay Rs.500/- as costS to the respective Legal
Services Authority. It was so paid and obviously, the
petitioner thought, the restoration application would be
allowed. But, to his dismay, the IA filed by him for
restoration was dismissed on the ground that the judgment
is confirming the award. Ext.P4 is the copy of the said
order. Aggrieved by Ext.P4, the petitioner has come up in
Writ Petition before this Court.
3. Obviously, the orders passed by the Court
below are incorrect. After having condoned the delay in
filing the IA for restoration and after having received the
payment made by the petitioner towards costs for the delay
from his part, the application filed by him for restoration
ought to have been allowed, treating the dismissal of
LAR as one for default. The petitioner has submitted
WPC 6783/10 3
that there was no wilful laches or negligence on his part in
not appearing before Court. There is no reason to
disbelieve him. In the result, this Petition is allowed. The
impugned orders are set aside and LAR No.39/04 of the
Sub Court, Neyyattinkara is restored to file.
P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE
sta
WPC 6783/10 4