IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2008 / 17TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 23992 of 2008(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ N.K.P.KUNJABDULLAH S/O. M.T. AHAMMAD KUNHI, ETTIKULAM POST RAMANTHALI, KANNUR DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.A.SHAJEEL RESPONDENTS: ------------- THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), EZHIMALA NAVEL ACADEMY, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT BY G.P. SRI.BASANTH BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.23992 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated the 8th August, 2008 JUDGMENT It appears to me that the petitioner is voicing a genuine grievance. Initially he filed application under Section 28A (Ext.P1) on the basis of the award of the court in L.A.R. 200/1987. That application was rejected by the land acquisition officer on the ground that the petitioner had received the original compensation awarded by the officer without lodging any protest. Law has been laid down by the Supreme Court that for maintaining an application under section 28A, it is not necessary that the original compensation should have been received by the party with protest. Noticing the judgment of the Supreme Court, the petitioner filed Ext.P4 fresh application under Section 28A on the basis of a subsequent court award in L.A.R. No.224/2001. That application was also rejected by the land acquisition officer by Ext.P5 on the ground that the subsequent application for the same purpose is not entertainable. Being aggrieved by Ext.P5, the petitioner filed W.P.C.No. 23992/2008 - 2 - Ext.P6 application before the land acquisition officer under Section 28A (3) of the Act for referring the question to the court. Ext.P6 has now been rejected and Ext.P7 is the communication sent to the petitioner. The reason on which the petitioner's application under Section 28A (3) is rejected by Ext.P7 is that application for reference under Section 28A (3) is filed out of time. 2. The learned Government Pleader Sri.Basanth Balaji would fairly submit that if Ext.P6 is to be treated as an application for reference in respect of Ext.P5, then Ext.P6 has been within the time. But,according to him, the petitioner himself would refer to Ext.P6 as a reminder of Ext.P4. May be the petitioner had committed mistake while drafting Ext.P6. I have no difficulty to consider Ext.P6 as an application for reference being aggrieved by Ext.P5. Looking at Ext.P6 that way, I am of the view that the land acquisition officer is bound to favourably consider Ext.P6 and refer the correctness of the decision taken under Ext.P5 to the concerned court. W.P.C.No. 23992/2008 - 3 - The result of the above discussion is that Ext.P7 is quashed and the land acquisition officer is directed to pass fresh orders on Ext.P6, treating the same as an application for reference in respect of Ext.P5 decision. Needful in compliance with the above direction will be done by the land acquisition officer at the earliest and at any rate within one month of the petitioner producing a copy of this judgment. dpk PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE