IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 31768 of 2009(M)
1. PUTHIYAPURAYIL MADHAVI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR.
... Respondent
2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR
For Petitioner :SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :16/03/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO.31768 OF 2009 (M)
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of March, 2010
J U D G M E N T
In this case 0.1130 hectors of land comprised in Rs.No.71/5
of of Ramanthali Village was acquired for the purpose of Naval
Academy, Ezhimala. Award was passed, compensation was paid
and reference under Section 18 was not sought by the petitioner.
Ext.P1 application made by the petitioner for redetermination of the
compensation under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act was
rejected. Again petitioner made Ext.P2 application, relying on the
judgment in LAR.No.213/1987 and that was also rejected by
Ext.P3 for the reason that an application was already rejected.
Petitioner’s application for reference under Section 28A(3) was
also rejected by Ext.P5. It is in these circumstances the writ
petition is filed challenging Exts.P3 and P5.
2. The first application made by the petitioner was
rejected as time barred. If so, the second application is
maintainable as held by this court in Muraleedharan Pillai V. State
of Kerala (1999(3)KLT 846) and in Madhavi V. Special Tahsildar
(2003(1) KLT 813). Consequently Exts.P3 and P45 are illegal and
WPC.No. 31768/09
:2 :
are liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, quashing Exts.P3 and P5, the writ petition is
disposed of directing reconsideration of Ext.P2 application. This
shall be done as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 8
weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. It is
clarified that this court has not expressed anything on the merits of
the case and the contentions of the petitioner are left open.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/