IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 7TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 24841 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SMT.MEETHAL THAYAL KUNHAMINA, D/O. HUSSAIN, ELLIKKULAM P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A.), EZHIMALA NAVAL ACADEMY, PAYYANNUR, NOW THALASSERY, KANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. By GP I V PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 24841 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2009 JUDGMENT This matter is not yet admitted and had been listed from time to time for instructions. 2. Instituted on 26.8.2009, the petitioner challenges Ext.P11 and P14 issued in the year 2001. 3. Ext.P1 to P3 applications were filed by the petitioner invoking Section 28A(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, relying on the appellate award passed in L.A.A.331 of 1992 arising from LAR 134 of 1987 of Sub Court, Payyannur. Later, petitioner filed Ext.P4 to P6 relying on the revised award passed on 3.9.1997 in LAR 120 of 1987 of Sub Court, Payyannur. 4. Ext.P4 to P6 were rejected on 18.1.2001 as per Ext.P11 stating that petitioner has already filed earlier applications(Ext.P1 to P3) and that in view of the pendency of those applications, Ext.P4 to P6 are being rejected on ground that they are duplications. Later, on 26.9.2001, Ext.P12, P13 and P14 are issued on the ground that the petitioner having not objected to Wpc 24841/2009 2 the award of the Collector, is not entitled to file an application under Section 28A(1). 5. While it may be right for the petitioner to point out through her learned counsel that the fact of not objecting to the award, or accepting award amount without prejudice are not grounds to refuse an application under Section 28A(1) and that the subsequent applications could have also been entertained, I find no reason for the enormous delay of nearly eight years to challenge the impugned decisions. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that his client is one among the uneducated persons from whom land was acquired, I find that even in the proceedings before the lower authority, the petitioner was represented through counsel. Even Ext.P5 and P6 are issued through Advocate. Under such circumstances, I do not deem it necessary for this court to extend its visitorial jurisdiction and interfere with the impugned award at this distance of time. Writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/30/9