IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2008 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 15388 of 2008(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. T.P.MOOSAKKOYA, S/O SEEMAMU, RAHMATH MANZIL, P.O.MELANGADI, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. AMBALAPPATTA AHAMMED KUTTY HAJI, S/O ALAVIKKUTTY, POST CHIRAYIL, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRIC.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM DIST. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION (G), MALAPPURAM. BY SRI.BASANTH BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 15388 of 2008 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of June , 2008 JUDGMENT The only prayer in this writ petition is that the Land Acquisition Officer may be directed to refer the question of determination of the correct compensation payable for the petitioners acquired properties to a competent civil court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. The learned Government Pleader on instruction submits that Exts.P1 and P2 reference application submitted by the petitioners under Section 18 were rejected on the ground that it was without protest that the original compensation was determined by the officer was received by the petitioners. As for Exts. P7 and P8 applications submitted by the petitioners under Section 28A of the Act, the learned Government Pleader submits that there is no prayer in the writ petition as regards those applications. 3. It is not possible to grant the prayer sought for also since Exts.P1 and P2 have already been rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer and I find that no prayers are sought for on the basis of Ext.P7 and P8. WPC No.15388/2008 2 The writ petition will stand dismissed. However, it is made clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioners' pursuing Exts.P7 and P8 by initiating appropriate fresh proceedings. The petitioners can even initiate proceedings for challenging the order of rejection of Exts.P1 and P2 if so advised. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE dpk