IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2011 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 5611 of 2011(B) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ K.S.USHAKUMARI, W/O.MOHANAN, AGED 48, PECHIVILAKATHU VEEDU, ATTIPRA VILLAGE, KULATHOOR P.O., TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 005. 2. DEPUTY COLLECTOR (L.A.), COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 005. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 5611 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the owner in absolute possession and enjoyment of property having an extent of 9.1 Ares comprised in Sy.No.196/1 of Attipra Village. This Writ Petition has been filed on being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in considering Ext.P3 application submitted by the petitioner for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act'). Admittedly, the above extent of property was acquired from the petitioner pursuant to 4(1) notification under the I.A Act, issued on 14.7.2004.. The second respondent issued Ext.P1 award notice on 7.1.2005 under Section 12(2) of the Act. On receipt of the same on 16.2.2005, the petitioner received an amount of Rs.3,13,486/- from the second respondent as is obvious from Ext.P2. The definite case of the petitioner is that she received the said amount under oral protest. Later, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P3 application for reference under Section 18 of the Act before the first respondent. As already noticed hereinbefore, even going by the contention of the W.P.(C) NO.5611/2011 2 petitioner, at the time of receipt of the award, she did not file an application in writing. She raised only oral protest. Later, she submitted Ext.P3 seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act. Be that as it may, I do not think it necessary to consider the contentions raised in this Writ Petition, on merits at this stage. Admittedly, the petitioner has already approached the first respondent through Ext.P3. Being the competent authority to decide on the said issue, the first respondent is bound to take a decision of Ext.P3. Therefore, without making any observation as to the merits of the contentions raised in this Writ Petition, it is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P3 submitted by the petitioner and pass orders thereon, expeditiously, in accordance with law, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.5611/2011 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.5611/2011 4