IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2010 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 31760 of 2009(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- ELIYOTT KUNHAMMA, W/O.KUNHAMMA, AGED 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT PUNCHAKKAD, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHILDAR(LAND ACQUISITION), NAVAL ACADEMY, PAYYANNUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.31760 OF 2009 (L) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T According to the petitioner, 50 cents of her property situated in Sy.No.365 of Ramanthali Village was acquired for the purpose of Naval Academy, Ezhimala. However in the application made under Section 28A, the survey number was wrongly mentioned as 366/5. Later on petitioner submitted Ext.P2 application dated 3.2.2009, requesting for correcting the Survey Number as 365/5. Still later by Ext.P3 order dated 11.2.2009 her application under Section 28A was rejected on the ground that no land was acquired from R.S.No.366/5. Reference under section 28A(3) was sought for by the petitioner by Ext.P4 was also rejected by Ext.P5. It is in these circumstances the writ petition is filed. 2. Evidently, therefore the case of the petitioner is that a mistake has occurred in the application that she made and it was hence she applied for correction. This application was received by the respondents before final order was passed. Therefore, before passing final orders, that application ought to have been WPC.No. 31760/09 :2 : considered. A reading of Ext.P3 shows that the application for correction was not considered, when order was passed in an application under Section 28A. Therefore, I am inclined to think that Ext.P3 is bad and I set aside Ext.P3 and consequently Ext.P4 as well. 3. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to reconsider the application made by the petitioner under Section 28A, taking into account Ext.P2 application for correction of survey number. 4. However, there is default on the part of the petitioner and for doing justice to the State also, it is directed that the petitioner will not be entitled to interest from the date of the application under Section 28A till the date of Ext.P2 application for correction, in the event compensation is eventually determined. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/