IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 6198 of 2008(K)
1. SINDHU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE KERALA MINERALS AND
For Petitioner :SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID
Dated :02/02/2011
O R D E R
HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.
------------------------
W.P.(C).No.6198 Of 2008
----------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2011.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is the claimant in L.A.R.No.26/2001 on the
file of the Additional Sub Court, Kollam. A small extent of 0.59
Ares of land owned by the petitioner was acquired for mining
purpose for KMML. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an
award. The petitioner submitted an application to the District
Collector with a request to refer the matter for determination of
the court. The Land Acquisition Officer, after being satisfied that
the application for reference was filed within the statutory period,
referred the matter to the Additional Sub Court, Kollam and
numbered as L.A.R.No.26/2001.
2. The second respondent is the requisitioning authority.
The requisitioning authority filed I.A.No.4363/2007 praying to
hear the question of limitation. According to the second
respondent, the reference is barred by limitation and therefore
prayed for dismissal of the reference case as not maintainable.
Ext.P3 is the order passed by the reference court holding that the
application filed by the petitioner on 18.8.2000 is beyond the
::2::
W.P.(C).No.6198 Of 2008
statutory period of six weeks and therefore reference application
is barred by limitation.
3. Compensation claimed by the petitioner is for
acquisition of 0.59 Ares of land owned by her. The petitioner is
aged 52. She along with her husband and children are residing
at Vallikkunnam in Alappuzha district for the last several years.
The eldest child of the petitioner is aged 28 years. The petitioner
has got married approximately 30 years back. Exts.P4 identity
card & P5 ration card were produced by the petitioner to show
that she is residing along with husband in her husband’s house
which is more than 50 kilometers away from her parental house.
After passing the award the Land Acquisition Officer issued notice
under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. The address
shown in the notice is the address of her parental house. The
petitioner submits that she left her parental house after marriage
and she is residing along with her husband in the place which is
at a distance of more than 50 kilometers. Admittedly, notice was
not served on the petitioner. The notice was served on the father
of the petitioner.
::3::
W.P.(C).No.6198 Of 2008
4. No information as regards the passing of the award
has been sent to the claimant who is the only person interested
in claiming compensation. Admittedly, notice was not served on
her and notice was served on her father. The service of notice is
therefore defective. Learned counsel for the second respondent
pointed out that the address shown by the petitioner in the
reference case is her parental address.
5. The reference court found that notice issued under
Section 12(2) was seen served on 3.7.2000 and that the father of
the claimant had accepted notice on her behalf. The reference
application was filed by the claimant on 18.8.2000. If the date of
service is taken as 3.7.2000 there is a delay of 4 days in filing
the application. The question is whether there is proper service
of notice. It is not the address that matters. Notice on the
claimant is important. Admittedly, notice was not served on her.
She is not the occupant of the family house and therefore the
notice served on the father instead of the claimant is irregular
and illegal. If the claimant is not available in the address shown
in Section 12(2) notice the notice should have been directed to
the correct address where she is residing. The said act of service
::4::
W.P.(C).No.6198 Of 2008
of notice on the father instead to the petitioner is not due service
for the purpose of compliance under Section 12(2) of the Land
Acquisition Act, the authorities shall have the duty to entertain
the reference application filed within six months. If that be so,
the application submitted on 18.8.2000 is within time. Ext.P3
order is therefore unsustainable. Ext.P3 order is set aside.
Additional Sub Court, Kollam shall try and dispose of L.A.R.No.26
of 2001 on merits in accordance with law.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
HARUN-UL-RASHID,
Judge.
bkn/-