IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2008 / 24TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 35523 of 2007(D) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M.C.BEEYARUMMA, W/O.LATE MOOSANKUTTY HAJI, `IQBAL MANZIL', PUNCHAKKATT, PAYYANNUR P.O., KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), THALASSERY, KANNUR, NOW SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), EZHIMALA NAVAL ACADEMY, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P(C) NO.35523 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 14th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T -------------------- Application filed by the petitioner under Section 28A of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act was rejected on the ground that another application filed by her for the same relief based on another judgment was already dismissed. 2. Learned Government Pleader relying on the decision reported in Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari (AIR 1995 SC 2259) has argued that the dismissal of the first application will be a bar for entertaining a second application. 3. The principle laid down in that decision has been distinguished in Madhavi v. Special Tahsildar (2003 (1) KLT 813) and in an unreported decision, Jagadamma v. District Collector Kollam (O.P.No.15332) decided on 6.10.1999. Another learned single Judge of this Court in O.P. No.31883 of 2000 decided on 22.7.2004 held that when a party files two applications for the same relief, he should have W.P(C) NO. 35523 OF 2007 -: 2 :- been given an option to pursue either of the application. In this case petitioner filed two applications. In an unreported decision, Beeyasumma v. Special Tahsildar (W.P(C) No.19689 of 2006) decided on 31.1.2007 another learned single Judge of this Court has held that when there is no consideration of the application on merits, it will not operate as res judicata. So the view taken by the Land Acquisition Officer that Exhibit P2 second application cannot be entertained is unsustainable. Exhibits P3 and P6 orders passed by the Special Tahsildar are unsustainable and they are liable to be quashed. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. Exhibits P3 and P6 are quashed. The second respondent is directed to treat Exhibit P2 application as one not barred by limitation and consider and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE. vsv K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. ===================== M.F.A. ===================== J U D G M E N T ------------------------------------------- TH JANUARY, 2008