IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2008 / 28TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 23316 of 2008(A) -------------------------- LAR.88/2000 OF ADDL.SUB COURT, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ GEORGE JOSEPH FERNANDEZ, KUTTIYIL BUNGALOW, CHOORAVILA,KUREEPUZHA, KOLLAM REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SRI. O. MARKOSE , S/O. JOSEPH, AGED 72 YEARS, THEKKARUKATHU VEEDU, KUREEPUZHA, PERINADU, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.MILTON RESPONDENT: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.BINDU. R THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT NO REPRESENTATION FOR PETITIONER. WRIT PETITION IS DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT. SD/- M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. 19TH AUGUST, 2008. OKB/- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... WP(C).No. 23316 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2008 JUDGMENT On an application filed by petitioner under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, his claim for enhanced compensation was referred to Sub Court, Kollam. Notice was issued to petitioner in LAR 88 of 2000, by the court on receiving the reference. Ext.P2 summons was received by petitioner directing to appear on 17.10.2000. He did not appear. Consequently, Sub Court dismissed the reference application for default on that day. Petitioner thereafter filed an application on 17.12.2000(I.A. 1436 of 2001)to restore the LAR which was dismissed for default. That application was also dismissed for default on 30.7.2003. This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India on 31.7.2008 challenging Ext.P3 and P4 orders contending that Land Acquisition Court has no jurisdiction to dismiss a reference petition for enhanced compensation for default as held by Apex Court in Khazan Singh V. Union of India(AIR 2002 SC 726). It was argued that Ext.P3 order dismissing the LAR is illegal and in any case it should have restored the case when an application is filed and therefore Ext.P2 and P3 orders are to be quashed WP(C) 23316/2008 2 and Sub Court is to be directed to dispose the LAR 18 of 2000 in accordance with law. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Government Pleader were heard. Learned counsel submitted that the delay in challenging Ext.P4 order was not wilful and when the court did not have the jurisdiction to dismiss a reference case and under Ext.P3 it was dismissed for default, this court has to exercise the supervisory jurisdiction and direct Sub Court to dispose the LAR on merits. Learned counsel also submitted that if warranted, petitioner could be denied the interest for the period when the reference case stood dismissed for default. Learned Government Pleader submitted that there is no reason to interfere with Ext.P4 order as petitioner did not challenge the same for five years. It was argued that in any case, petitioner cannot claim interest on the enhanced compensation, if any awarded for that period. 3. While passing Ext.P3 order dismissing the reference case for default, learned Sub Judge did not consider his jurisdiction and the question whether a reference case could be dismissed for default. The principle laid down by Apex Court in Khazan Singh's case (supra) was not borne in mind while passing WP(C) 23316/2008 3 Ext.P3 order. Ext.P3 order is therefore illegal. Consequently learned Sub Judge is to be directed to consider the reasonableness of the compensation awarded by Land Acquisition Officer and decide whether claimant is entitled to any enhanced compensation. But petitioner is not entitled to claim any interest for the period from 17.10.2000, the date on which reference case was dismissed till 31.7.2008, the date on which writ petition was filed. 4. Writ petition is disposed as follows:- Ext.P3 order is quashed. Sub Court, Kollam is directed to restore LAR 88 of 2000 to file and dispose the same in accordance with law after granting opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence. If the court finds that the claimant is entitled to any enhanced compensation, it is made clear that claimant is not entitled to any interest for the period from 17.10.2000 to 31.7.2008. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-