IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2009 / 9TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 38111 of 2008(K) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, S/O.C.PADMANABHAN NAIR, R/AT. 'SREEVATSAM', PLOT NO.47, KRISHNAVIHAR COLONY, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-682 036. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.) SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.A.R.NIMOD RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, ADDITIONAL L.A. UNIT, VANCHIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 035. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.38111 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Certain properties belonging to the petitioner have been acquired by the Government by resort to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. According to the petitioner, during the award enquiry the petitioner has appeared and filed a statement claiming a higher amount as compensation. The petitioner submits that the petitioner had also made an oral request for reference to the Court regarding the quantum of compensation. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application for reference of the question as to the sufficiency of the compensation to the Court. However, that was not considered. The petitioner, therefore, filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “(i) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents 2 and 3 to refer the inadequacy of compensation in L.A.C. No.184/2005 (Award No.1/2006) to court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. (ii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents 2 and 3 to treat Ext.P2 objection along with the oral request made as sufficient W.P.(c)No.38111/2008 2 compliance for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act; (iii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the third respondent to consider Ext.P6 as filed in continuation of Ext.P2 and make a reference to court for adjudication on the issue of inadequacy of compensation”. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. Admittedly, the application for reference now filed by the petitioner is beyond the period stipulated under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioner now relies on the oral request made by the petitioner during the award enquiry. I do not think that, that would be sufficient for the purpose of making a reference under Section 18 of the Act. When the application actually filed by the petitioner is beyond the period prescribed under Section 18, the petitioner cannot as of right claim that the claim should be referred to the Court. The petitioner could not also satisfy me that the petitioner’s objection raised in the award enquiry is sufficient for referring the matter to the Court. W.P.(c)No.38111/2008 3 In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the claim of the petitioner and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. However, I make it clear that this would not stand in the way of the petitioner raising a claim under Section 28A of the Act, if the petitioner is entitled to do so. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.38111/2008 4