IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2010 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 10207 of 2010(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ACHAMMA KOSHY, AGED 74 YEARS, W/O.CHACKO KOSHY, VAZHIVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, VETTIKOD, P.O.MAVELIKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHANAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA. 2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R2 MR.V.MANU, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.10207 of 2010 (A) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 25th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner states that 17.90 ares of property comprised in Survey No.291/4-1 of Kattanam Village, Mavelikkara Taluk was acquired for the construction of 33 KV Sub Station at Kattanam Village. She was not satisfied with the compensation awarded and she made Ext.P2 application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. Thereafter, she approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.10380/2004 complaining of delay in considering her application. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment dated 24/05/2004 directing the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, KSEB, Thiruvananthapuram to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2. 3. There was no progress in the matter and finally in response to her query, by Ext.P7 she was informed that the Office of the Special Deputy Collector was abolished and that the records WP(C) No.10207/2010 -2- have been handed over to the concerned District Collector. The concerned District Collector being the 1st respondent herein, on behalf of the petitioner, Ext.P8 representation has been submitted requesting for reference as directed in Ext.P3 judgment. Although Ext.P8 has been received, there was no progress. It is with this grievance, the writ petition has been filed. 4. If as stated by the petitioner, Ext.P2 application has been made, the application should have been considered and appropriate orders should have been passed without the intervention of this Court. Since orders have not been passed and as is seen from Ext.P7, the matter is pending before the 1st respondent to whom Ext.P8 representation was also made, it is directed that the 1st respondent shall consider Exts.P2 & P8. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of this writ petition. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg