Fredson Wilfred vs The Land Acquisition on 29 May, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 3127 of 2006(V)


1. FREDSON WILFRED,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE LAND ACQUISITION, SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

                For Petitioner  :SRI.J.GEORGE

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

 Dated :29/05/2008

 O R D E R
                       PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J.
                      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                        W.P.(c).No. 3127 OF 2006
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                   Dated this the 29th day of May, 2008

                                JUDGMENT

Under challenge in this writ petition is Ext.P6 order of the Land

Acquisition Officer rejecting the application for reference under

Section 18(2) filed by the petitioner on the ground of limitation. The

petitioner concedes that the award was passed on 23-05-2005 and that

he did receive a notice under Section 12(2) on 10/06/2005. According

to the respondents, reference application was received by them on

16/08/2005. But according to the petitioner, the reference application

was personally submitted before the Land Acquisition Officer on

15/07/2005. If the claim of the petitioner that the reference application

was submitted before the Land Acquisition Officer on 17/05/2005

personally is correct, then the reference application will be within

time. But having gone through the files I am inclined to accept the

version of the respondents that the reference application was actually

submitted by the petitioner only on 16/08/2005. It is seen that the Land

Acquisition Officer had been receiving the papers submitted before him

WPC.No.3127/08 2

by putting his initials with date on them. The file shows that the

original of the reference application was received by the Land

Acquisition Officer only on 16/08/2005. Therefore it cannot be said

that the Land Acquisition Officer erred in passing Ext.P6 rejecting the

reference application submitted by the petitioner on the ground of

limitation. In my opinion, the petitioner does not have to worry. The

acquisition was for the purpose of construction of a road. There should

be other cases which were referred to the court at the instance of other

claimants whose properties were acquired under the very same

notification. It is always open to the petitioner to apply under Section

28 A on the basis of enhancements awarded by the court in such

reference cases. Making it clear that Ext.P7 will not stand in the way of

the petitioner invoking his remedies under Section 28A, I dispose of

the writ petition without granting the reliefs prayed for.

PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE
JUDGE

sv.

WPC.No.3127/08 2