IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2011 / 30TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 18075 of 2011(H) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ JOSEPH, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.CHACKO, VATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE, VADAKKUM MURI P.O., KARIMKUNNAM, THODUPUZHA. BY SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE, BY ADV. SRI.A.S.SAJUSH PAUL, SRI.THOMAS JAMES MUNDACKAL, SMT.S.AMBILY SRI.TONY THOMAS (INCHIPARAMBIL). RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, PAINAVU, IDUKKI, PIN-685 603. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION BUILDING, THODUPUZHA, PIN-685 584. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, PAINAVU, IDUKKI, PIN-685 603. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. R1 TO R4 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.18075/2011 H APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF SKETCH DTD. 3/3/2010 PREPARED BY THE TALUK SURVEYOR, THODUPUZHA. P2: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD.22/03/2010 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF LETTER DTD. 28/04/2010 RECEIVED FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P4: COPY OF LETTER RECEIVED FROM THE TAHASILDAR, THODUPUZHA. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.18075 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 21th day of July, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a resident of Thodupuzha Village. He owned 34.30 Ares of property in Survey No.125/3 of Thodupuzha Village. 2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner was in Austria for a long period of 18 years. During one of his trips to India, sometime in 1999-2000, the municipal authorities approached the petitioner and got certain documents executed evidencing relinquishment of about 22 cents of land for the purpose of Vengalloor- Mangattukavala Bye Pass. 3. The petitioner submits that on his return to the country in 2010 he came to know that among the persons who relinquished land along with him, four persons raised objections contending that the procedure laid down for relinquishment were not complied with. It is stated that those persons also approached this Court and that on the W.P(C) No.18075 of 2011 2 basis of the judgment passed by this Court, an enquiry was conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, in which it was found that relinquishment was improper. It is stated that, on that basis proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act were initiated, Award was passed and compensation was also paid to those four persons. 4. It is stated that for parity of reasons the relinquishment of the petitioner's property was also irregular and that the petitioner is also entitled to the same benefits given to the aforesaid four persons. Claiming the benefits he made Ext.P2 representation before the Revenue Divisional Officer. Orders were not passed. It is in these circumstances the writ petition is filed. 5. Learned Government Pleader has obtained instructions in the matter. According to the learned Government Pleader the relinquishment was in the year 1999-2000 and the lands were taken over in the year 2004- 05 and that bye-pass has been constructed. It is stated that in 2005 four among the affected persons raised objections W.P(C) No.18075 of 2011 3 and approached this Court by filing W.P(C) No.24391/2005. In the enquiry that was held pursuant to the directions of this Court, it was found that the relinquishment in so far as those four persons are concerned was irregular. It is stated that therefore land acquisition proceedings were initiated and compensation was paid to those four persons. It is stated that at no point of time did the petitioner raise any objection and that the objection raised by the petitioner at this point of time is highly belated and for that reason itself the writ petition deserves rejection. 6. Admittedly there is a long delay on the part of the petitioner. The explanation offered by the petitioner is that he was working abroad and returned to the country only in the year 2010. In my view, even if this factual statement made by the petitioner is accepted at its face value, that will not enable the petitioner to ignore the delay on his part and get the cause of action, which has become time barred and stale by lapse of time resurrected. Therefore, I am not in a position to accept the justification offered by the petitioner W.P(C) No.18075 of 2011 4 for the belated approach to the authorities and to this Court made at this point of time. It is true that what the petitioner seeks is that the benefit which has been given to four persons, whose land has also surrendered. As held by the Apex Court in AP Steel re-rolling Mill Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala & others (2007(2)SCC 725) delay is a good ground to deny the benefit of a judgment, to a similarly situated person. If that be so, applying the same logic and reasoning, I must hold that the delay on the part of the petitioner rendered him ineligible to claim benefits on a par with the aforesaid four persons. The Writ Petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC ab JUDGE