IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2008 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 5608 of 2008(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ B.FATHIMA BEEBI, D/O. BEEMA BEEBI, AGED 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT TC NO.25/1965, MELTRA A-32, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 2. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, ADDITIONAL LA UNIT, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI. BASANTH BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.5608 OF 2008 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of May, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges Ext.P4 order of the Land Acquisition Officer rejecting Ext.P3 application which she had filed under Section 18(2)of the Land Acquisition Act seeking a reference of the question of determination of the correct compensation payable for her acquired properties to the competent Civil Court. The reason on which Ext.P3 was rejected was that the reference application is barred by limitation. Justifying Ext.P4 a detailed statement has been filed by the 2nd respondent and it is contented therein that the award notice under Section 12(2) was issued to the petitioner on 15.10.2007 and that the same was accepted by Irshad Sheikh, the petitioner's nephew, as authorised by the petitioner on 18.10.2007. It is further contended that the notice under Rule 15(3) demanding possession on the strength of the award was also received on behalf of the petitioner by Sri.Irshad Sheikh himself and that Sri.Irshad Sheikh put the Government in W.P.(C)No.5608/2008 2 possession of the property on 25.10.2007 on behalf of the petitioner. The reference application was filed only on 14.1.2008 which means that there is delay of 45 days. 2. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mr.Basanth Balaji, the learned Government Pleader. The learned Government Pleader has placed before me the files and I have perused the same. The files reveal that the petitioner Smt.Fathima Beevi had under her own handwriting and signature authorised her nephew Sri.Irshad Sheikh on 3.10.2007 “to attend all matters relating to acquisition of land for road widening and for revaluation of my shop”. Significantly, it is discernible from the above authorisation letter that Smt. Fathima Beevi and Sri.Irshad Sheikh, her nephew were residing in the very same address T.C.25/1965,Thampanoor, Thiruvananthapurm. The files will further reveal that the contentions of the Land Acquisition Officer that on the strength of the above authorisation award notice was served on Sri.Irshad Sheikh and that Sri.Irshad Sheikh put the Revenue Inspector concerned in possession on 15.10.2007 are true. This being the position, I am unable to find W.P.(C)No.5608/2008 3 any infirmity on Ext.P4 order rejecting Ext.P3 application on the ground under limitation. The challenge against Ext.P4 fails and the writ petition will stand dismissed. However, it is made clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioner invoking the right and remedy of re-determining the compensation due to him under Section 28(A) on the basis of any relevant court award. (PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) ps