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. 8154 of 2007(U) ------------------------------------- LAR.NO.55/2000 OF SUB COURT, HOSDRUG. .................... PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.LATE RAMAPPA, RESIDING AT PUTHIYAKODI, PALLIKKARA II VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, P.O.BEKAL, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. CHANDRASHEKHARA, S/O.LATE KORAGAPPA, RESIDING AT PUTHIYAKODI, PALLIKKARA II VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, P.O.BEKAL, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3. PUTHIYAKODI SRI.VISHNUMUDI CHAMUNDESHWARI, KARAPPADY MANA BHARANASAMITHI, P.O.BEKAL, PALLIKARA II VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, P.CHANDRASEKHARA. BY ADV. MR.A.DINESH RAO. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), KASARAGOD. 2. SULOCHANA, W/O.LATE RAMACHANDRA, KENGENA, MANGALORE. 3. VINOD RATNA, W/O.U.DAMODHARAN, KENGENA, MANGALORE. 4. RAGHUVEERA, S/O.KRISHNAPPA, MAROLI, MANGALORE. 5. SESHAGIRI, S/O.KRISHNAPPA, MULIHITHLU, MANGALORE. W.P.(C). NO.8154/2007-U: 6. B.BHASKARA, RETD.POLICE CONSTABLE, C/O.DINESH, JEEP DRIVER, BLOCK-4, ROOM 14, OLD POLICE QUARTERS, MANGALORE. 7. SULOCHANA, D/O.KRISHNAPPA, KARIPODDY, P.O.BEKAL. 8. B.JANARDHANA, S/O.SUNDARI, JAPPINA MOGARU, THANDALIKE, P.O.KANKANADI, MANGALORE. 9. GUNAPATHI, W/O.B.DEVAPPA BEKAL, INDIAN PLY WOOD, P.O.GURUVAYANAKERE, BELTHANGADI TALUK. 10. MOHAN RAO, S/O.KAMALA, SAJI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, NEAR CHEMBUR, MUMBAI-400 089. 11. MANAGER, B.R.D.C., KANDARI KOVIL ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 12. SUNANDA R.RAO, W/O.LATE B.P.RAO, RESIDING AT SAIKRIPA, RAILWAY STATION LINK ROAD, KANHANGAD. 13. DEENA NARASIMHA, W/O.H.NARASIMHA, H.C.1231, PANDESHWAR POLICE STATION, MANGALORE. 14. DEENA RAMESH, W/O.H.RAMESH, SAIKRIPA, RAILWAY STATION LINK ROAD, KANHANGAD. 15. MEENA GOVARDHAN, W/O.GOWARDHAN, NEAR ADAPPA HOSPITAL, OLD KEN ROAD, MANGALORE-7, KARNATAKA STATE. 16. INDIRA, W/O.LATE B.LEELADHAR, KANNAPATHAGES, MAROLI, MANGALORE-7, KARNATAKA. 17. JNANESHWARI, D/O.LEELADHAR, KANNAPATHAGES, MAROLI, MANGALORE-7, KARNATAKA. 18. DINESHA, S/O.LATE B.BHASKAR, KARNATAKA BANK, HEAD OFFICE, N.H.17, NEAR MADAVEER, CIRCLE, MANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE. W.P.(C). NO.8154/2007-U: 19. MUKTHALATHA, W/O.NAVIN, 28, P.K.G.STREET, II LANE WALL TAX ROAD, CHENNAI-600 079. R1 BY GOVT. 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.8154/2007-U: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT FILED BY THE P.3. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE COMMISSIONERS' REPORT. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE I.A. NO. 918/06 IN L.A.R. NO. 55/2000. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE SPL. TAHSILDAR. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN I.A. NO. 918/2006. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.8154 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioners challenge the order refusing to restore a land acquisition reference answered in default. Learned Government Pleader rightly states that the order impugned could have been appealed against. But the matter having been admitted more than two years ago, I would treat this case on merits. The cause title of the impugned Ext.P5 clearly gave an indication that the case was only a reference under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. I, therefore, looked into the order passed by the learned Sub Judge dismissing the matter in default. That proceeds as if it is a Section 18 reference. I, therefore, looked into the files as available by the learned Government Pleader. It contained two applications for reference under Section 18. But the only reference that I could see in that WPC.8154/07. 2 file is one under Section 31. Whatever that be, considerable confusion has been created even by the cause title in Ext.P5 and the order dated 9.8.2006. One among the petitioners had filed a medical certificate disclosing that he had been ill. May be that the case contained other claimants. But, essentially, it was a case of rival claimants. Therefore, the Sub Court ought to have adopted a more pragmatic approach since the materials on record abundantly show that there was sufficient cause to restore the matter to file. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed quashing Ext.P5 and directing that LAR No.55/2000 of the Sub Court, Hosdurg will stand restored by the force of this judgment. If it is a reference under Section 18, the benefit of that will inure only to the petitioners, that too, in the event of the Section 31 reference being answered in their favour. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.3/11.