{"id":53408,"date":"2007-08-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-08-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joseph-vs-the-special-tahsildar-l-a-on-24-august-2007"},"modified":"2015-03-08T22:17:22","modified_gmt":"2015-03-08T16:47:22","slug":"joseph-vs-the-special-tahsildar-l-a-on-24-august-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joseph-vs-the-special-tahsildar-l-a-on-24-august-2007","title":{"rendered":"Joseph vs The Special Tahsildar (L.A) on 24 August, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Kerala High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Joseph vs The Special Tahsildar (L.A) on 24 August, 2007<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C) No. 17522 of 2006(J)\n\n\n1. JOSEPH, S\/O.AUGUSTINE RAPHEL,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A),\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.B.GOPAKUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN\n\n Dated :24\/08\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                            K.T. SANKARAN, J.\n                     -------------------------------------------\n                     W.P.(C) NO. 17522 OF 2006 J\n                     -------------------------------------------\n                 Dated this the 24th day of August,2007\n\n                                JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>       The questions involved in this Writ Petition are: (1) Is it incumbent<\/p>\n<p>upon the Reference Court under the Land Acquisition Act to refer back the<\/p>\n<p>papers to the Land Acquisition Authority if the claimant dies after<\/p>\n<p>reference? (2)   Whether the legal representatives of the claimant are<\/p>\n<p>entitled to come on record as such in               substitution of the deceased<\/p>\n<p>claimant in the Land Acquisition Reference proceedings? and (3) What<\/p>\n<p>should be the procedure if the Land Acquisition Authority does not return<\/p>\n<p>the papers after complying with the directions issued by the Reference<\/p>\n<p>Court within a reasonable time?\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>       2. An extent of 4.10 Ares of land belonging to one Raphel was<\/p>\n<p>acquired along with other lands. On 20.6.1992, an award was passed.<\/p>\n<p>Since there was dispute regarding disbursement of the award amount,<\/p>\n<p>reference was made under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, which<\/p>\n<p>was numbered as L.A.R.No.221 of 1994, on the file of the Sub Court,<\/p>\n<p>Ernakulam. Raphel, who was `B&#8217; claimant, died on 5.10.1994. The legal<\/p>\n<p>representatives of Raphel, one of whom is the petitioner in this Writ<\/p>\n<p>Petition, filed an application to get themselves impleaded in the land<\/p>\n<p>W.P.(C) NO.17522 OF 2006<\/p>\n<p>                                    :: 2 ::\n<\/p>\n<p>acquisition proceedings in L.A.R.No.221 of 1994. Instead of impleading<\/p>\n<p>them, the Reference Court issued a direction to the Land Acquisition<\/p>\n<p>Officer to get a report regarding identity of the legal representatives of<\/p>\n<p>Raphel. That case was being adjourned from 1994 to 1998 awaiting the<\/p>\n<p>report of the Land Acquisition Officer. Till 2003 nothing tangible transpired.<\/p>\n<p>The petitioner herein filed O.P.No.7252 of 2003, which was disposed of as<\/p>\n<p>per judgment dated 14.3.2003, directing the Land Acquisition Officer to re-<\/p>\n<p>submit the land acquisition file to the Reference Court. It was held that if<\/p>\n<p>the Land Acquisition Officer fails to do so, the petitioner would be free to<\/p>\n<p>supply all the relevant documents before Court and the court below should<\/p>\n<p>reconstruct the file on the basis of such records. It is submitted that the<\/p>\n<p>Land Acquisition Officer did not comply with the directions and on the basis<\/p>\n<p>of the documents produced by the petitioner the files were reconstructed<\/p>\n<p>and L.A.A.No.221 of 1994 was disposed of as per Ext.P2 decree, holding<\/p>\n<p>that the legal representatives of Raphel would be entitled to receive the<\/p>\n<p>amount of compensation.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>      3. Deceased Raphel had filed an application for reference under<\/p>\n<p>Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act claiming enhanced compensation.<\/p>\n<p>Reference was made and the case was numbered as L.A.A.No.299 of<\/p>\n<p>1994. After reference, Raphel died. His legal representatives were not<\/p>\n<p>W.P.(C) NO.17522 OF 2006<\/p>\n<p>                                    :: 3 ::\n<\/p>\n<p>impleaded as no steps were taken either by the Land Acquisition Officer or<\/p>\n<p>by the legal representatives of deceased Raphel in that regard.            The<\/p>\n<p>learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no notice was issued to<\/p>\n<p>Raphel in L.A.A.No.299 of 1994 nor did he appear in the case.              The<\/p>\n<p>counsel submits that the legal representatives of Raphel were not bound to<\/p>\n<p>do anything in the Land Acquisition Reference. The Writ Petition is filed<\/p>\n<p>praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents,<\/p>\n<p>The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) and the District Collector, to make<\/p>\n<p>a reference to the appropriate court or to take steps to reconstruct the<\/p>\n<p>records of the Reference Court for disposal of the case.<\/p>\n<p>      4. The petitioner submitted Ext.P3 representation dated 17.3.2004,<\/p>\n<p>to the Special Tahsildar and District Collector stating the facts in detail and<\/p>\n<p>requesting for a reference showing the names of the legal representatives<\/p>\n<p>of Raphel to enable them to prosecute their claim for enhancement of<\/p>\n<p>compensation.     Ext.P4 letter dated 8.2.2006 was sent by the Special<\/p>\n<p>Tahsildar to the petitioner stating that on getting the information of the<\/p>\n<p>District Government Pleader, he is of the view that a second reference is<\/p>\n<p>not possible as requested for in Ext.P3, presumably under the impression<\/p>\n<p>that what was prayed for by the petitioner was for a second reference.<\/p>\n<p>W.P.(C) NO.17522 OF 2006<\/p>\n<p>                                       :: 4 ::\n<\/p>\n<p>        5. A counter affidavit is filed by the first respondent stating that<\/p>\n<p>reference application made by Raphel was forwarded to the Sub Court,<\/p>\n<p>Ernakulam as per letter dated 8.2.1994, which was despatched on<\/p>\n<p>16.3.1994.      The stand taken by the first respondent is that once the<\/p>\n<p>reference is made under Section 18, a second reference is not possible<\/p>\n<p>under law.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>        6. A report was called for from the Principal Sub Judge, Ernakulam.<\/p>\n<p>It is reported that the reference was made to that Court and it was<\/p>\n<p>numbered as L.A.R.No.299 of 1994 on 8.4.1994. After the death of the<\/p>\n<p>claimant Raphel, the Land Acquisition Officer was addressed to report<\/p>\n<p>about the particulars of the legal representatives.       Since no reply was<\/p>\n<p>received, on 24.8.1995, the reference was returned for re-presentation<\/p>\n<p>after obtaining the correct address of the legal representatives of the<\/p>\n<p>deceased claimant. It is also reported that thereafter the papers were not<\/p>\n<p>re-presented. It is further stated that the status of the case is &#8220;idle&#8221; and the<\/p>\n<p>file is kept in the record section of the Court.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>        7. Section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act reads as follows:<\/p>\n<p>               &#8220;53. Code of Civil Procedure to apply to proceedings<br \/>\n        before Court:- Save in so far as they may be inconsistent with<br \/>\n        anything contained in this Act, the provisions of the Code of<\/p>\n<p>W.P.(C) NO.17522 OF 2006<\/p>\n<p>                                     :: 5 ::\n<\/p>\n<p>       Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) shall apply to all<br \/>\n       proceedings before the Court under this Act.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>If the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure apply, certainly the<\/p>\n<p>provisions of Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure also must apply.<\/p>\n<p>Order XXII Rule 3 provides for impleading the legal representatives of the<\/p>\n<p>deceased plaintiff. Rule 2 of Order XXII provides for recording that the<\/p>\n<p>surviving plaintiffs or defendants shall represent the estate of the deceased<\/p>\n<p>plaintiff or defendant. Article 120 of the Limitation Act provides for a period<\/p>\n<p>of ninety days for filing the application for impleading the legal<\/p>\n<p>representatives of the deceased plaintiff or defendant.           If no such<\/p>\n<p>application for impleading the legal representatives is filed within ninety<\/p>\n<p>days, there would be abatement. Article 121 of the Limitation Act provides<\/p>\n<p>for a period of sixty days to set aside the abatement. Even if no such<\/p>\n<p>application is filed within 150 days from the date of death, the delay can be<\/p>\n<p>condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>       8. The question whether the provisions of Order XXII of the Code of<\/p>\n<p>Civil Procedure would apply to Land Acquisition References was<\/p>\n<p>considered by various High Courts.       The Calcutta High Court in State of<\/p>\n<p>W.B. v. Dwijendra Chandra Sen (AIR 1979 Calcutta 182), held that Order<\/p>\n<p>XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure would apply to Land Acquisition<\/p>\n<p>W.P.(C) NO.17522 OF 2006<\/p>\n<p>                                    :: 6 ::\n<\/p>\n<p>References. In that decision, the Calcutta High Court held thus:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>             &#8220;12. By virtue of Section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act<br \/>\n       the provisions of Civil Procedure Code are applicable to all<br \/>\n       proceedings before the Court under the Act unless such<br \/>\n       provision in the Code is inconsistent with anything contained in<br \/>\n       the Act. Any provision in the Land Acquisition Act would not<br \/>\n       appear directly to be inconsistent with the principle of<br \/>\n       substitution under Order 22 of the Civil Procedure Code. The<br \/>\n       reference under that Act cannot be regarded in any way<br \/>\n       different from an ordinary Civil Proceeding. In this view of the<br \/>\n       matter, a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition<br \/>\n       Act or an appeal arising out of an award would be attracted by<br \/>\n       Order 22 of the Civil Procedure Code&#8230;.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The Gujarat High Court in Alihusain Abbasbhai and others v. Collector,<\/p>\n<p>Panch Mahals (AIR 1967 GUJARAT 118), held that a reference under<\/p>\n<p>Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is a proceeding before Court and by<\/p>\n<p>virtue of Section 53 of the Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil<\/p>\n<p>Procedure including the provisions contained in Order XXII Rule 3 are<\/p>\n<p>applicable to such references.       When the applicant died during the<\/p>\n<p>pendency of the proceedings before the Reference Court, the legal<\/p>\n<p>representatives of the applicant are entitled to make an application to the<\/p>\n<p>Court for bringing themselves on record as the legal representatives of the<\/p>\n<p>deceased party. It was also held by the Gujarat High Court that no time<\/p>\n<p>limit is prescribed for filing of an application for substituting the legal<\/p>\n<p>representatives of the deceased       applicant and that Article 176 of the<\/p>\n<p>W.P.(C) NO.17522 OF 2006<\/p>\n<p>                                    :: 7 ::\n<\/p>\n<p>Limitation Act, 1908 (corresponding to Article 120 of the Limitation Act,<\/p>\n<p>1963) would not apply.\n<\/p>\n<p>      9. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Abdul Karim v. State of<\/p>\n<p>Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1964 MADHYA PRADESH 171), held that the<\/p>\n<p>provisions of Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure do not apply to the<\/p>\n<p>proceedings under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. It was held:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>             &#8220;Section 53 cannot be read as creating a fiction for<br \/>\n      deeming &#8220;proceedings before the Court under the Act&#8221; as<br \/>\n      proceedings in any suit. It is thus plain that Order 22 of the<br \/>\n      Code of Civil Procedure cannot be applied to proceedings<br \/>\n      under Section 18 of the Act taking those proceedings as suit<br \/>\n      proceedings in reality or fictionally under the Code of Civil<br \/>\n      Procedure. Its applicability to proceedings under Section 18 of<br \/>\n      the Act can only be by virtue of Section 53 and subject to the<br \/>\n      limitation contained in that section. The limitation is that the<br \/>\n      provision of the Code of Civil Procedure intended to be applied<br \/>\n      must not be inconsistent with anything contained in the Act.<br \/>\n      For the purpose of inconsistency it is not necessary that there<br \/>\n      should be an express provision to the contrary in the Act itself.<br \/>\n      It would be enough if the applicability of a provision of the<br \/>\n      Code of Civil Procedure to any proceedings before the Court<br \/>\n      under the Act would be incompatible with the nature of the<br \/>\n      proceedings.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>It was further held by the Madhya Pradesh High Court that the presiding<\/p>\n<p>Judge has to make an award once a reference is made under Section 18,<\/p>\n<p>no matter whether the person at whose instance the reference has been<\/p>\n<p>made appears or fails to appear before the Court or fails to produce<\/p>\n<p>evidence in support of his objection.      It was the view of the Madhya<\/p>\n<p>W.P.(C) NO.17522 OF 2006<\/p>\n<p>                                   :: 8 ::\n<\/p>\n<p>Pradesh High Court that there could be no dismissal of the reference as<\/p>\n<p>abated due to non-impleadment of the legal representatives of the<\/p>\n<p>deceased claimant. In this context the Madhya Pradesh High Court held<\/p>\n<p>that:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>            &#8220;If the person who moved for the reference dies and no<br \/>\n     one comes forward to represent him in the Court, then it is<br \/>\n     clearly the duty of the Government to supply to the Court the<br \/>\n     names and addresses of the legal representatives of the<br \/>\n     deceased claimant to enable the Court to issue fresh notices<br \/>\n     to them under Section 20. In the present case, there was no<br \/>\n     difficulty about tracing the legal representatives of Abdul<br \/>\n     Hakim and issuing notices to them.        They themselves had<br \/>\n     come forward as his legal representatives and made an<br \/>\n     application for being brought on record as Abdul Hakim&#8217;s legal<br \/>\n     representatives. The learned Additional District Judge should<br \/>\n     have, therefore, brought Abdul Karim and Abdul Majid on<br \/>\n     record as the legal representatives of Abdul Hakim and given<br \/>\n     them an opportunity of leading evidence in support of the<br \/>\n     objection made by Abdul Hakim to the award given by the<br \/>\n     Land Acquisition Officer. He was clearly in error in applying<br \/>\n     Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Articles 171 and<br \/>\n     176 of the Limitation Act.     If, as we have said above, the<br \/>\n     proceedings under Section 18 are not suit proceedings, and in<br \/>\n     the very nature of those proceedings Order 22 cannot be<br \/>\n     applied to them, then clearly neither Article 171 nor Article 176<br \/>\n     can be invoked. It must be remembered that Article 176 of the<br \/>\n     Limitation Act applies to suits and appeals arising out of a suit.<br \/>\n     It has no applicability to other proceedings. If Order 22 can<br \/>\n     properly be applied to proceedings which are not suit<br \/>\n     proceedings, then the relevant article of limitation would be the<br \/>\n     residuary Article 181 and not Article 176 of the Limitation Act.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     10. A Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in Mst.Ram Piari and<\/p>\n<p>W.P.(C) NO.17522 OF 2006<\/p>\n<p>                                   :: 9 ::\n<\/p>\n<p>others v. The Union of India (AIR 1978 DELHI 129) took the view that<\/p>\n<p>Order XXII Rules 3 and 9 would apply to a reference under Section 18 of<\/p>\n<p>the Land Acquisition Act and that the Limitation Act also would apply. The<\/p>\n<p>legal representatives of the deceased party are bound to apply to the Court<\/p>\n<p>for being brought on record to enable them to prosecute the reference.<\/p>\n<p>One of the reasons for taking this view is that no obligation is cast on the<\/p>\n<p>Court to make an award on the failure of the applicant at whose instance<\/p>\n<p>the reference is made, to appear and to adduce evidence. The Full Bench<\/p>\n<p>also took the view that no obligation is cast on the Collector to furnish the<\/p>\n<p>names and addresses of the legal representatives of the deceased<\/p>\n<p>claimant to keep the reference alive.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>      11. Another Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in Chander and<\/p>\n<p>others v. Mauji and others (AIR 1989 DELHI 97) followed the decision in<\/p>\n<p>AIR 1978 DELHI 129(supra) and held that the provisions of Order XXII of<\/p>\n<p>the Code of Civil Procedure and those of the Limitation Act relating to<\/p>\n<p>abatement on the death of a party would apply to the proceedings under<\/p>\n<p>Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act and also to the appeal<\/p>\n<p>arising out of the said proceedings.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>      12. I have carefully considered the different views expressed by the<\/p>\n<p>W.P.(C) NO.17522 OF 2006<\/p>\n<p>                                      :: 10 ::\n<\/p>\n<p>Delhi, Calcutta, Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat High Courts. It is well settled<\/p>\n<p>by the decisions of the Supreme Court that the court dealing with a<\/p>\n<p>reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act has to decide the<\/p>\n<p>reference on the merits. The Supreme Court also has taken the view that<\/p>\n<p>an application under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure is<\/p>\n<p>maintainable before the reference court. There is a difference between an<\/p>\n<p>ordinary civil litigation and a reference under the Land Acquisition Act. The<\/p>\n<p>plaintiff can directly approach the civil court and seek his relief by<\/p>\n<p>presenting a plaint. A person aggrieved by the quantum of compensation<\/p>\n<p>fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer has no such right to directly approach<\/p>\n<p>the reference court by filing an Original Petition or by making any other<\/p>\n<p>application. He can ventilate his grievance only by filing an application<\/p>\n<p>before the Land Acquisition Officer stating that he is not satisfied with the<\/p>\n<p>amount awarded. A period of limitation is also provided under Section 18<\/p>\n<p>(2) of the Act for making an application for reference. Once an application<\/p>\n<p>is made under Section 18 of the Act, the claimant has no role to play in the<\/p>\n<p>processing of the application and in bringing the matter before the<\/p>\n<p>reference court. The claimant need appear before the reference court on<\/p>\n<p>notice.   Only thereafter, he can participate in the proceedings and put<\/p>\n<p>forward his contentions. There may arise cases where the death of the<\/p>\n<p>claimant may occur after making the reference application but before the<\/p>\n<p>W.P.(C) NO.17522 OF 2006<\/p>\n<p>                                     :: 11 ::\n<\/p>\n<p>reference reaches the Court; or the death may occur after the reference<\/p>\n<p>reached to the Court but before notice was received by the claimant. In yet<\/p>\n<p>another case, the death of the claimant may occur after he received notice<\/p>\n<p>and before appearance is made by him before Court. Another situation<\/p>\n<p>may arise where the death of the claimant occurs after he enters<\/p>\n<p>appearance in the reference case on notice. A claimant can be said to<\/p>\n<p>have participated in the proceedings before the reference court only on<\/p>\n<p>receipt of notice. So there can be no doubt that if the death occurs before<\/p>\n<p>the matter reaches the reference court, it is the duty of the Land Acquisition<\/p>\n<p>Officer to furnish the details of the legal representatives of the claimant and<\/p>\n<p>make a proper reference to the court. Once the matter reaches the Court<\/p>\n<p>by way of reference, the Land Acquisition Act does not provide for any duty<\/p>\n<p>on the Land Acquisition Officer to make an application to substitute the<\/p>\n<p>legal representatives of the claimant. The claimant in the reference case<\/p>\n<p>would be in the position of a plaintiff. Therefore, in cases where the death<\/p>\n<p>occurs after the reference reaches the court and notice is received by the<\/p>\n<p>claimant, it can be safely concluded that the legal representatives of the<\/p>\n<p>deceased claimant have to come on record on their application. I am also<\/p>\n<p>of the view that if the death occurs after the reference and before notice is<\/p>\n<p>served on the claimant, the Land Acquisition Court could legitimately direct<\/p>\n<p>the Land Acquisition Officer to furnish the details of the legal<\/p>\n<p>W.P.(C) NO.17522 OF 2006<\/p>\n<p>                                   :: 12 ::\n<\/p>\n<p>representatives of the claimant so that notice could be issued by the Land<\/p>\n<p>Acquisition Court to those legal representatives.<\/p>\n<p>      13. In so far as abatement is concerned, I prefer to agree with the<\/p>\n<p>view taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court that there could be no<\/p>\n<p>dismissal of the reference case on the ground of abatement.<\/p>\n<p>      14. On consideration of the various views expressed by the High<\/p>\n<p>Courts and taking into account the statutory provisions, I am of the view<\/p>\n<p>that the following principles can be adopted, which, according to me, would<\/p>\n<p>be more suitable and would cause less inconvenience to the parties.<\/p>\n<p>(1)   If the death of the claimant occurs before the reference is made,<\/p>\n<p>      certainly the duty is on the Land Acquisition Officer to make a<\/p>\n<p>      reference showing the legal representatives of the deceased<\/p>\n<p>      claimant as additional claimants.\n<\/p>\n<p>(2)   If the death of the claimant occurs after the reference reaches the<\/p>\n<p>      Court and before service of notice, the reference court shall address<\/p>\n<p>      the Land Acquisition Officer to furnish details of the legal<\/p>\n<p>      representatives of the deceased claimant and thereafter the Land<\/p>\n<p>      Acquisition Court shall issue notice to those legal representatives.<\/p>\n<p>(3)   If the death of the claimant occurs after the claimant has received<\/p>\n<p>      notice in the Land Acquisition Reference, the duty to come on record<\/p>\n<p>W.P.(C) NO.17522 OF 2006<\/p>\n<p>                                   :: 13 ::\n<\/p>\n<p>      is on the legal representatives of the deceased and to that extent,<\/p>\n<p>      the provisions of Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure would<\/p>\n<p>      apply.\n<\/p>\n<p>(4)  The provisions of Order XXII as regards abatement would not apply to<\/p>\n<p>      Land Acquisition Reference. Since there could be no abatement,<\/p>\n<p>      there is no question of there being delay in making the application for<\/p>\n<p>      impleading. The question of condonation of delay, therefore, does<\/p>\n<p>      not arise at all.\n<\/p>\n<p>(5)  The provisions of the Land Acquisition Act or the Code of Civil<\/p>\n<p>      Procedure do not cast any inhibition on the legal representatives of<\/p>\n<p>      the deceased claimant for applying to bring them on record as<\/p>\n<p>      additional claimants in the party array in the land acquisition<\/p>\n<p>      proceedings.        If such an application is filed by the legal<\/p>\n<p>      representatives, nothing prevents the Land Acquisition Court in<\/p>\n<p>      entertaining that application and impleading the legal representatives<\/p>\n<p>      of the deceased with due notice to the Land Acquisition Officer. It is<\/p>\n<p>      not necessary to refer the matter back to the Land Acquisition Officer<\/p>\n<p>      for a report since the Land Acquisition Officer is already on the party<\/p>\n<p>      array in the Land Acquisition Reference. Objection, if any, to such<\/p>\n<p>      impleading could be raised by the respondent Land Acquisition<\/p>\n<p>      Officer and the Court could consider the same on the merits.<\/p>\n<p>W.P.(C) NO.17522 OF 2006<\/p>\n<p>                                  :: 14 ::\n<\/p>\n<p>      In view of the principles enunciated above, the Writ Petition is<\/p>\n<p>disposed of permitting the petitioner and other legal representatives of the<\/p>\n<p>deceased Raphel to file an application before the Land Acquisition Court<\/p>\n<p>for impleading. If such an application is filed, the Land Acquisition Court<\/p>\n<p>shall implead them as additional claimants and dispose of the Land<\/p>\n<p>Acquisition Reference on the merits. The Land Acquisition Court shall<\/p>\n<p>dispose of the reference as expeditiously as possible in view of the fact that<\/p>\n<p>the award was passed in 1992 and more than 15 years elapsed since the<\/p>\n<p>date of award.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                         (K.T.SANKARAN)<br \/>\n                                                               Judge<\/p>\n<p>ahz\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kerala High Court Joseph vs The Special Tahsildar (L.A) on 24 August, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C) No. 17522 of 2006(J) 1. JOSEPH, S\/O.AUGUSTINE RAPHEL, &#8230; Petitioner Vs 1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A), &#8230; Respondent 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, For Petitioner :SRI.B.GOPAKUMAR For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER The Hon&#8217;ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-53408","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Joseph vs The Special Tahsildar (L.A) on 24 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joseph-vs-the-special-tahsildar-l-a-on-24-august-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Joseph vs The Special Tahsildar (L.A) on 24 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joseph-vs-the-special-tahsildar-l-a-on-24-august-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-08-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-08T16:47:22+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joseph-vs-the-special-tahsildar-l-a-on-24-august-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joseph-vs-the-special-tahsildar-l-a-on-24-august-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Joseph vs The Special Tahsildar (L.A) on 24 August, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-08-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-08T16:47:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joseph-vs-the-special-tahsildar-l-a-on-24-august-2007\"},\"wordCount\":3283,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joseph-vs-the-special-tahsildar-l-a-on-24-august-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joseph-vs-the-special-tahsildar-l-a-on-24-august-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joseph-vs-the-special-tahsildar-l-a-on-24-august-2007\",\"name\":\"Joseph vs The Special Tahsildar (L.A) on 24 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-08-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-08T16:47:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joseph-vs-the-special-tahsildar-l-a-on-24-august-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joseph-vs-the-special-tahsildar-l-a-on-24-august-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joseph-vs-the-special-tahsildar-l-a-on-24-august-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Joseph vs The Special Tahsildar (L.A) on 24 August, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Joseph vs The Special Tahsildar (L.A) on 24 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joseph-vs-the-special-tahsildar-l-a-on-24-august-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Joseph vs The Special Tahsildar (L.A) on 24 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joseph-vs-the-special-tahsildar-l-a-on-24-august-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-08-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-08T16:47:22+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joseph-vs-the-special-tahsildar-l-a-on-24-august-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joseph-vs-the-special-tahsildar-l-a-on-24-august-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Joseph vs The Special Tahsildar (L.A) on 24 August, 2007","datePublished":"2007-08-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-08T16:47:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joseph-vs-the-special-tahsildar-l-a-on-24-august-2007"},"wordCount":3283,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joseph-vs-the-special-tahsildar-l-a-on-24-august-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joseph-vs-the-special-tahsildar-l-a-on-24-august-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joseph-vs-the-special-tahsildar-l-a-on-24-august-2007","name":"Joseph vs The Special Tahsildar (L.A) on 24 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-08-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-08T16:47:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joseph-vs-the-special-tahsildar-l-a-on-24-august-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joseph-vs-the-special-tahsildar-l-a-on-24-august-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joseph-vs-the-special-tahsildar-l-a-on-24-august-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Joseph vs The Special Tahsildar (L.A) on 24 August, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53408","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=53408"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53408\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=53408"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=53408"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=53408"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}