IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 24TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 20458 of 2009(B) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ TEEKADY PARU, W/O.PADINHAREPURAYIL KUNHAMBU, AGED 70 YEARS, P.O.RAMANTHALI, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), NAVAL ACADEMY, PAYYANNUR. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.V.MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.20458 of 2009-B = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 15th day of September, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner filed an application under Section 28A(1) based on the award of court in LAR.124/1987. That was rejected on the ground that there was no protest. Later, she filed another application under Section 28A(1) based on Ext.P6 judgment in LAR.6/1999. That application is rejected on the ground that the earlier one was rejected, i.e. duplication. The fact that a person did not object while receiving the amount fixed as compensation is no ground to refuse an application under Section 28A(1). If that be so, the rejection of the application filed on the basis of LAR.124/1987 could not stand in the way of consideration of an application on the basis of LAR.6/1999. But, whether that is a revised award; whether it falls under the same WP(C)20458/09 -: 2 :- notification and what is the comparable effect and the question of limitation, are to be decided by the officer considering the application under Section 28A(1). Therefore, it is ordered that the application of the petitioner Ext.P2 filed on the strength of LAR.6/1999 shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. All other issues are left open. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/160909