IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 30596 of 2005(P)
1. J.HARIKRISHNAN NAIR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
... Respondent
2. SPECIAL TAHASILDAR L.A(G.L)
For Petitioner :SRI.M.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :16/06/2008
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
----------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO. 30596 of 2005
----------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of June , 2008
JUDGMENT
Under challenge in this writ petition is Ext.P2 order of the Land
Acquisition Officer rejecting the application under Section 28A of the
Act filed by the petitioner for re-determination of the correct
compensation payable for his acquired properties. The reason stated
in Ext.P2 for rejecting the application under Section 28A is delay.
Sri.Poovappally M.Ramachandran Nair the learned counsel for the
petitioner has addressed me very strenuously and persuasively on the
authority of the judgment of the Full Bench in Krishnan Kutty v.
The Special Tahsildar (2003 (3) KLT 705 (F.B.) . The ratio
dissidendi of the Full Bench Judgment is that the question whether
the applicant under Section 28 A had received the compensation
determined by the Awarding Officer with or without protest is totally
irrelevant in the context of maintainance and disposal of application
under Section 28A of the Act. The Full Bench judgment has nothing to
do with the question whether the time barred applications under
Section 28A can be entertained or disposed of by the Land Acquisition
WPC No. 30596/2005 2
Officer. In the last paragraph of the Full Bench Judgment, the Full
Bench has expressed concern about the inordinate delay which is being
caused by the Land Acquisition officers in the matter of disposing of
applications for reference under Section 18 and application for
determination of compensation under Section 28A of the Act. This
court has noticed that on account of such delay, the Government is
loosing heavily on account of interest at the statutory rates mentioned
in Section 34 of the Act. This court has directed forwarding a copy of
the judgment to the Chief Secretary, so that necessary follow up action
will be taken.
3. I am not inclined to accept the submission of
Sri. Ramachandran Nair that in a situation where the authorities under
the Land Acquisition Act are causing inordinate delay resulting in
incurring of very heavy loss by the Government on account of interest
under Section 34 of the Act, small extents of delay caused by the
parties in the matter of filing under section 28A should be condoned. I
am unable to accept the above submissions since it is settled by the
judicial authority including those by the Supreme Court that thought
Section 28A is beneficent provision intended for the benefit of those
illiterate and inarticulate persons who omit to make application
under Section 18 of the Act within the time, the statutory provisions of
WPC No. 30596/2005 3
limitation are to be construed strictly in their case also.
The writ petition will stand dismissed.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
dpk