IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2010 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 17603 of 2010(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KANDATHIL PATHUMMA, W/O.ISMAIL, AGED 45 YEARS, MUNEER QUARTERS, ETTIKULAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND ACQUISITION) NAVAL ACADEMY, PAYYANNUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR SRI.V.MANU FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) No.17603 of 2010 EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON RE-DETERMINATION OF THE COMPENSATION UNDER SECTION 28A(1) DATED 23.3.1998. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 28A(3) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT DATED 29.4.98 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF POSTAL RECEIPT FOR SENDING EXT.P2 UNDER REGISTERED POST. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.17603 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T A parcel of land, 0.0983 hectares in extent, situated in R.S.No.229/2 of Ramanthali Village, Thaliparamba Taluk, belonging to the petitioner was acquired for the purpose of Naval Academy, Payyannur. The award was passed on 4.5.1984. The petitioner did not at that stage claim enhancement of compensation. The owner of the adjacent parcel of land however was more vigilant and on his application, the dispute regarding the compensation was referred to the Sub Court, Payyannur, where it was taken on file and numbered as L.A.R.No.124 of 1987. By judgment delivered on 26.7.1989, the Land Acquisition Court enhanced the compensation. Thereupon, the petitioner moved an application under Section28A of the Land Acquisition Act, producing along with it a copy of the judgment in L.A.R.No.124 of 1987. That application was entertained and an award under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act was passed in the petitioner's presence on 30.3.1998. She also received payment of the enhanced compensation. The case put forward by the petitioner in this writ petition is that she had received the enhanced compensation under protest and had also submitted the original of Ext.P2 petition before the Special Tahsildar (LA) Kannur, wherein she pointed out that W.P.(C) No. 17603 of 2010 2 the compensation awarded is inadequate and requested the Special Tahsildar (LA) Kannur to refer the dispute regarding the compensation to Sub Court, Payyannur. The petitioner contendes that the original of Ext.P2 was sent by registered post. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to consider the request made by her in Ext.P2 and to take an appropriate decision thereon. 2. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit disputing the receipt of Ext.P2. In paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner has not filed any application under Section 28A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act. The respondents have also denied having received the original of Ext.P2 application. 3. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the learned Government Pleader made available the files leading to Ext.P1 award passed under section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act. The files do not contain the original of Ext.P2. The Award under section 28A was passed on 30.3.1998 by the Special Tahsildar (LA), Thalassery. It was passed in the presence of the petitioner. However, Ext.P2 application is seen addressed to the Special Tahsildar (LA) Kannur, a different authority. The respondents are therefore perfectly right in contending that the Officer who passed the Award, viz., the Special W.P.(C) No. 17603 of 2010 3 Tahsildar (LA), Thalassery, has not received he original of Ext.P2. The mere fact that the petitioner had sent a representation seeking reference to the Sub Court, to a wrong authority, viz., Special Tahsildar (LA) , Kannur, is no reason to hold that he had requested the authority which passed the Award to refer the dispute regarding the quantum of compensation to the civil court. I, therefore, find no grounds to grant the relief prayed for. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.