IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP No. 7206 of 2003(G)
1. E.SUBAIR KUNJU,
... Petitioner
2. ABDUL RABBU P.,
3. SUBAIDA BEEVI,
4. SULFATH BEEGUM,
5. MUHAMMED HANEEFA A.,
6. RAJELA BEEVI,
7. SALAVUDDIN M.,
8. ABDUL JABBAR M.,
9. RAJ MON C.,
10. KRISHNAN KUTTY A.,
11. ABDUL SALAM S.,
12. MUHAMMED RASHEED A.,
13. ESMAIL PILLAI,
14. A.SAINAM BEEVI,
15. JANISA BEEVI K.,
16. RAHUMA BEEVI A.,
17. S.JUMAILA BEEVI,
18. ABDUL RASHEED,
19. ABDUL AZEEZ,
20. SMT.PATHUMMA KUNJU,
21. SHERIFA BEEVI,
22. ABDUL KHARIM,
23. LETTICIA K.J.,
24. SARITHA SUDHAKAR,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
3. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,
4. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH
Dated :13/12/2006
O R D E R
KURIAN JOSEPH, J.
----------------------------------------------
O.P.No.7206 of 2003
----------------------------------------------
Dated 13th December, 2006.
J U D G M E N T
The writ petition is filed mainly with the following
prayer :-
“Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ
direction or order quashing Exts.P5(a) to P5(s) and directing the
respondents to refer the applications Exts.P4 to P4(x) under
Section 18(2)(b) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act to the Sub
Court, Thiruvananthapuram for the determination of the market
value of the property in the land acquisition case mentioned
therein.”
The main contention of the petitioners is that they were under
the impression that the acquisition proceedings had already been
dropped, and hence the applications submitted by them for
reference should be treated to have been filed in time. Learned
Government Pleader, referring to the counter affidavit submits
that except the petitioners, all others in the locality had taken
timely action and the contention that the proceedings had been
dropped is factually incorrect. It is also submitted that the
petitioners 7 and 8 had not filed any application for reference
even belatedly. It is seen from the counter affidavit that the
award was passed on 15.10.2001, with due notice to the parties.
It is also seen that Section 12(2) notice had been served on the
parties, immediately after passing the award. There is no reply
OP NO. 7206/03 2
affidavit. Thus it is fairly clear from the averments in the counter
affidavit that the petitioners had not taken action for reference
within the permitted period of six weeks and hence their case
cannot be directed to be referred under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act to the Sub Court. The writ petition is hence
dismissed making it clear that the judgment shall not stand in the
way of the petitioners taking steps under Section 28A of the Land
Acquisition Act.
KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE.
tgs
KURIAN JOSEPH, J
———————————————-
O.P.No.7206 of 2003 (G)
———————————————-
J U D G M E N T
Dated 13th December, 2006.