P.V. Sudhakaran vs District Collector on 4 August, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 22480 of 2008(A)


1. P.V. SUDHAKARAN, AGED 45,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR.
                       ...       Respondent

2. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA),

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

 Dated :04/08/2008

 O R D E R
                       PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J.
                      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                       W.P.(c).No.22480 OF 2008
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                  Dated this the 4th day of August, 2008

                                JUDGMENT

The petitioner challenges Ext.P5 which is a communication sent

to him by the second respondent land acquisition officer with reference

to Ext.P4. Ext.P4 was a reminder to Ext.P3 dated 16-4-1998.

According to the petitioner Ext.P3 was an application for reference

under Section 28A(3) since the petitioner was aggrieved by the award

passed by the land acquisition officer in the application under section

28A which the petitioner had filed. In Ext.P5, it is stated that the

petitioner’s reference application Ext.P4 had been rejected and

communication had been sent to the petitioner on 20/7/1998.

Heard Sri.V.N.Ramesan Nambisan, the learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri.Basant Balaji, the learned senior Government

Pleader. Sri.V.N.Ramesan would submit that though it is stated in

Ext.P5 that the order rejecting the reference application was

communicated to the petitioner by post, the petitioner is yet to receive

any such communication. He submitted further that he has been

WPC.No.22480/08 2

informed by the staff of the second respondent that the only reason on

which Ext.P3 was rejected is that a wrong provision ( section 18) has

been quoted therein instead of the correct provision which is section

28A(3). Whatever that be, I am of the view that the petitioner should

be given a copy of the decision taken by the second respondent on the

reference application submitted by the petitioner on 16/4/1998 which

according to the petitioner has not been received by him at all.

Accordingly, I dispose of the writ petition issuing the following

directions;

The second respondent is directed notwithstanding anything

stated in Ext.P5 to communicate to the petitioner the decision taken by

the second respondent on Exts.P3 and P4 to the petitioner by registered

post acknowledgment due within three weeks of receiving copy of this

judgment.

PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE
JUDGE

sv.

WPC.No.22480/08 2