IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 35431 of 2009(Y)
1. KUMARIDEVI, W/O.S.SUDHAKARAN, VATTAVILA
... Petitioner
2. E.SKRIYA, S/O.ITTE CHERIA, ALUVILA
3. PADMAKSHY, D/O.NARAYANI, MUKALUVILA
4. THANKAMMA, W/O.SKRIYA, PANAYL
5. SHAJAHAN, S/O.ABDUL LATHEEF,
6. ABIDA BEEVI, THEDAVILA VEEDU,
7. P.S.LEELAMMA, PANAYIL VEEDU,
8. FAZEELATH BEEVI, THEKKECHARUVILA VEEDU,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE,
3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, K.I.P. NO.IX,
For Petitioner :SRI.PRATHEESH.P
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :05/01/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
------------------
WP(C) No.35431 of 2009 (Y)
--------------------------
Dated, this the 5th day of January, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P4 series of
notices issued by the 3rd respondent rejecting the applications made
by the petitioners under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act on
the ground that the applications made by the petitioners were not
accompanied by certified copy of the awards.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
applications having been made within the time prescribed, these
could not have been rejected for the aforesaid reason and placed
reliance on the judgment of this Court in Balakrishnan v. Spl.
Tahsildar (2006(3) KLT 1000).
3. A reading of the aforesaid judgment shows that it has
been held that if an application has been made within the time limit
prescribed in Section 28A (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, such an
application cannot be rejected for the reason that the same is not
accompanied by certified copy of the award. Ext.P4 series of notices
WP(C) No.35431/2009
-2-
impugned in this writ petition shows that the only reason pointed
out is that certified copy of award was not enclosed. If that be the
only reason for rejection, Ext.P4 series of notices are against the
principles laid down in the judgment relied on by the learned
counsel for the petitioners.
4. Accordingly, Ext.P4 series of notices impugned in this
writ petition are set aside, and the writ petition is disposed of
directing the 3rd respondent to entertain the applications made by
the petitioners under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act
ignoring the fact that the applications were not accompanied by
certified copy of the awards provided, the applications made by the
petitioners have been received within the time limit prescribed
under Section 28A(1) of the Land Acquisition Act.
The petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment before
the 3rd respondent, who shall take expeditious action in this matter.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg