IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 25283 of 2006(I)
1. ULAHANNAN PAULOSE, KARAVATTE PENATTEL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY DISTRICT
... Respondent
2. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.GHOSH YOHANNAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :15/02/2007
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
--------------------------
W.P.(C)NO.25283 OF 2006
-------------------------
DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2007
JUDGMENT
Property of petitioner was acquired under Section 4(1)
notification dated 10.4.1997. Award was passed and petitioner
received the compensation as per the Award. He did not seek
reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act. Later, on 4.12.02
he filed an application under Section 28A of Land Acquisition Act along
with copy of judgment in L.A.R.225/99 and L.A.R.226/99 contending
that Court has enhanced the compensation for the similar properties
under the same notification and therefore he is entitled to get
enhanced compensation. The grievance of petitioner is that
respondents did not consider that application. Later he found out that
properties involved in L.A.R.225/99 and L.A.R.226/99 were not
acquired pursuant to the same notification but a different notification.
2. According to petitioner, thereafter he filed Ext.P1
application on 10.8.06, along with copy of judgment in L.A.R.58/99
contending that he is entitled to get enhanced compensation on the
basis of the enhanced compensation granted by the Court in
L.A.R.58/99.
W.P.(c)25283/06 2
3. Learned Government Pleader made available the
records. It reveals that original application was filed on 4.12.02 and
judgment in L.A.R.225/99 on the basis of which claim was raised
showed that it was in respect of a different Section 4(1) notification.
Therefore the application filed under Section 28A was rejected.
4. Ext.P1 application could only be treated as a subsequent
application filed on 10.8.06 as enhanced compensation was claimed
under Section 28A on another judgment in another case than the
one originally claimed. Learned Government Pleader also pointed
out that under Section 28A of Land Acquisition Act, an application
has to be filed within three months from the date on which Court
has granted enhanced compensation for similar properties under the
very same Section 4(1) notification and an applicant is entitled to
get excluded only the period taken for getting certified copy of that
judgment from Court. It was pointed out that judgment in
L.A.R.58/99, on the basis of which enhanced compensation was
sought for under Ext.P1 application, was passed on 29.8.02 and the
application based on that judgment should have been filed within
three months from 29.8.02.
5. Petitioner is entitled to get the period from the date on
which he filed the application for certified copy and the date on
which he received the certified copy excluded while computing the
period for limitation. Ext.P2 shows that certified copy was obtained
W.P.(c)25283/06 3
on 11.11.02. It was therefore pointed out that as Ext.P1application
was not filed within the period provided under Section 28A, it is not
maintainable. There is force in the submission. But as no order is
passed in Ext.P1 application, respondents are directed to pass
appropriate order in Ext.P1 application in accordance with law within
thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is
made clear that if the application was not filed within the period,
respondents are competent to reject the same.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,JUDGE
Acd
W.P.(c)25283/06 4