IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 3RD ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 28600 of 2008(D) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24/10/2007 IN IA 1427/2007 IN LAR.195/2003 of ADL.SUB COURT, THALASSERY .................... PETITIONER --------------- M.V.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O. LATE KUMARAN, 'SANKARALAYAM' P.O.CHIRAKKARA, TELLICHERRY, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.K.P.HARISH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR (LAND ACQUISITION), EZHIMALA NAVAL ACADEMY, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).No.28600 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT When this writ petition came up for admission, learned Government Pleader took notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader. Under challenge in this writ petition is Ext.P3 order of the land acquisition reference court closing the reference under section 18 initiated at the instance of the petitioner on the reason that the petitioner-claimant was absent. Also under challenge is the further order of the learned Subordinate Judge dismissing Ext.P4 application submitted by him for reviewing/ re-opening Ext.P3 order on the reason that copy of the order sought to be re-opened is not produced. 2. On a careful scrutiny of Ext.P3 order, it is seen that what the learned Subordinate Judge had done in view of the absence of the claimant was not to answer the reference confirming the award passed by the officer but, instead only to “close” the reference. It is the above WPC.No.28600/08 2 order of closure which prompted the petitioner to seek “ re-opening”. The learned Subordinate Judge construed this application as an application for review and directed the petitioner to produce a certified copy of Ext.P3. The petitioner did not produce the certified copy despite the above order and that is why Ext.P4 was dismissed by order dated 24-10-2007. I am of the view that the learned Subordinate Judge cannot be faulted for having dismissed Ext.P5 since the petitioner was bound to comply with the order directing him to produce the certified copy of Ext.P3. At the same time, since I find that by closing the reference under Ext.P3, the learned Subordinate Judge had kept the doors open for re-opening, I am inclined to grant relief to the petitioner, but only on terms. The writ petition accordingly will stand allowed in the following terms: 3. The petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred only) by way of cost to the Government through the office of the Advocate General within two weeks from today. If cost is paid as directed above, Exts.P3 and P5 will stand set aside and L.A.R.No.195/03 will be posted for filing of WPC.No.28600/08 3 statements by the claimant as well as the respondent Government. If cost is not paid as directed on time, the writ petition will stand dismissed and Exts.P3 and P5 will stand confirmed. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No.28600/08 4