IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2009 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 149 of 2009(P) ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27/09/2008 IN IA.3257/2008 IN LAR.32/2002 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER: -------------- THE KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LTD., SANKARAMANGALAM, CHAVARA, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (P&A). BY MR.E.K.MADHAVAN, ADVOCATE. MS.P.VIJAYAMMA, ADVOCATE. MR.V.KRISHNA MENON, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. GOMATHI, THEMPATH VEEDU, PONMANAMURI, PANMANA VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 2. ANIL KUMAR, THEMPATH VEEDU, PONMANAMURI, PANMANA VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 3. AJITHA, THEMPATH VEEDU, PONMANAMURI, PANMANA VILLAGE, KOLLAM. W.P.(C) No.149/2009 ...2... 4. ANILA, THEMPATH VEEDU, PONMANAMURI, PANMANA VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. BY MR. S.M.ALTHAF FOR R1 TO R4. MS. K.R. DEEPA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) 149/2009 A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 : COPY OF the APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT IN LAR No.32 OF 2002. EXT. P2 : COPY OF the ORDER IN I.A. No.3257/2008 IN L.A.R No.32/02 DTD. 27.9.2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. // True Copy // P.A. to Judge. smp S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.149 OF 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT The Requisitioning Authority in a land acquisition proceedings is the petitioner herein. The properties belonging to respondents 1 to 4 were acquired by the 5th respondent for the petitioner for a public purpose. Respondents 1 to 4 filed an application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, pursuant to which the Land Acquisition Officer referred the matter to the Court for adjudication of the quantum of compensation. The same was numbered as L.A.R.No.32/2002. The petitioner herein, who is the requisitioning authority, filed I.A. No.3257/08 before the reference court alleging that the reference application being beyond the time stipulated in Section 18 of the Act is barred by limitation and therefore, on that ground the LAR should be decided against respondents 1 to 4. In that I.A., the Court passed the following order, which is Ext.P2 in this writ petition. W.P.(c)No.149/09 2 “Heard both sides. The petitioner contend that the award notice was send on 28.6.00. The claimant states in the reference application that the award notice was received on 3/7/00. The Special Tahsildar vide reference letter No.B2/05/02 dated 28/1/02 states that the claimant has made the reference application in time. In these circumstances the question whether the reference is barred by limitation or not can be decided only after taking evidence. Hence this I.A. is dismissed”. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P2. According to the petitioner, the files of the Land Acquisition Officer would prove that the Section 18 application was filed beyond time. Therefore, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “i) to call for the records leading to the order dated 27.9.2008 evidenced by Ext.P2 and declare that the order dated 27.9.2008 evidenced by Ext.P2 is illegal and unsustainable in law. ii) to declare that the reference application filed by respondents 1 to 4 numbered as L.A.R.No.32 of 2002 is barred by limitation and thus not maintainable”. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 as well as the learned Government Pleader. I had in W.P.(C) NO.883/09, a writ petition filed by the petitioner Company, filed against a similar order in another LAR in respect of the same acquisition held that as far as possible Land Acquisition Reference Courts W.P.(c)No.149/09 3 should not decide Land Acquisition References piece-meal, especially when the adjudication of the preliminary point itself requires evidence. In Ext.P2 all what has been observed is that for deciding the preliminary issue on limitation raised by the petitioner, it is necessary to take evidence and on that ground dismissed the I.A. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the challenge against Ext.P2. Therefore, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to raise their contention regarding limitation also in the LAR itself, this writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.149/09 4