IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2009 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 36817 of 2008(G) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. V.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI RESIDING AT AYYATTU VEETTIL KARICHAL, VEEYAPURAM, HARIPAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. GOWRI AMMA SARASWATHY AMMA, W/O.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, DO.DO. BY ADVS. MR.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI, SMT.SABINA JAYAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 3. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION (NH), KOLLAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. V. MANU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/11/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.36817/2008-G: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE AWARD DTD. 23/10/2003. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 03/09/2008 IN W.P.(C).NO.24260/2004 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 03/10/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE P.1. BEFORE THE R.2. EXT.P.3.A: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 30/10/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE P.1. BEFORE THE R.2. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 20/11/2008 FROM THE R.3. TO THE P.2. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 21/11/2008 FROM THE R.3. TO THE P.1. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.36817 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT 1.The petitioners' land was acquired. They sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. That was time barred. The challenge against the rejection of that application was repelled by this Court. The petitioners' right to seek remedy under Section 28-A(1) was specifically preserved, which means only that such right was preserved in accordance with law. The petitioners invoked Section 28-A(1) by filing an application. The District Collector found that it was barred by limitation, going by the necessary endorsements regarding certified copy of the award of the reference court, that was relied on in that application under Section 28-A(1). This is challenged on the plea that Section 14 of the Limitation Act may apply by excluding the time spent in prosecuting the Section 18 petition, including the writ petition before this Court. This is not permissible. For one thing, WPC.36817/08. 2 Section 18 application and Section 28-A proceedings work in two different scenario. Legislative history regarding the incorporation of Section 28-A would also support this. 2.Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners were not given an opportunity of pre-decisional hearing. Factually, that may be correct. But even if I were to set aside the impugned decision on that ground, no useful purpose will be served, having regard to the undisputed ground realities and facts. That will only be further loading the table of the District Collector and unnecessarily giving a hope to the petitioners in that regard. The failure of extending pre- decisional hearing has not resulted in injustice in the case in hand. 3.Learned counsel then contended regarding the feasibility of proceedings under Section 28-A(3), which is also, as of now, time barred. Not only that, the reference court cannot go WPC.36817/08. 3 beyond the fact that the application under Section 28-A(1) stood answered correctly on the question of limitation. All that the petitioner can aspire now is to wait for some other award of the reference court arising from the same notification and then, try the chance to have a fresh application under Section 28-A(1). Preserving that right, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.3/11.