IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2008 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1929 OP.No. 33039 of 2000(G) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ OUSEPH PAULOSE, KUTTANAL, KINGINIMATTAM, KOLENCHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE KURUVILLA SRI.P.V.BABY. RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A.) PERIYAR VALLEY IRRIGATION PROJECTS, KAKKANADU, CIVIL STATION, ERNAKULAM. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.No.33039/2000 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.16441/93-G DT. 10.12.93 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P2 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DT. 21.3.1995 BEARING NO.13- 2698/94. EXT.P3 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF REFERENCE APPLICATIOJN SENT BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 13.5.1995. EXT.P4 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF JUDGMENT IN OP.NO.3963/96 DT. 6.3.96 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------- O.P.No. 33039 of 2000 ------------------------------- Dated this the 17th March, 2008. J U D G M E N T The grievance of the petitioner in this Original Petition is that the Land Acquisition Officer is not passing orders in Ext.P3 application filed by the petitioner under Section 28A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act'). The land owned by the petitioner was acquired for a public purpose. There were two land acquisition cases. According to the petitioner, though he filed petitions under Section 18(1) of the Act in both cases, only one case was referred. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application under Section 28A of the Act. That application was rejected as per Ext.P2 order. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Ext.P3 application under Section 28A(3) of the Act on 13.5.1995 to refer the matter to Court. According to the petitioner, the Land Acquisition Officer is not taking any action. Hence, this Original Petition. OP.No.33039/2000 2 2. The only reason stated by the Land Acquisition Officer for rejecting the application under Section 28A of the Act was that the case might have been referred to the Court. That reasoning is wrong. An application filed under Section 28A of the Act can either be allowed or dismissed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The same cannot be referred to Court. The Officer himself had specifically stated that the application filed by the petitioner was one filed under Section 28A of the Act. The petitioner need only file a petition under Section 28A (3) of the Act, after the dismissal of the application filed under Section 28A of the Act. So, Ext.P2 order passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is liable to be quashed. Ext.P3 application shall also be treated as a petition filed under Section 28A of the Act. I am of the view that this Original Petition can be disposed of with a direction to treat Ext.P3 as an application under Section 28A of the Act filed within time and dispose of the same afresh, in accordance with law. In the result, the Original Petition is allowed. Ext.P2 order passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is quashed. The Land Acquisition Officer is directed to treat Ext.P3 as an application filed under Section 28A of the Act, for re-determining the compensation in OP.No.33039/2000 3 LAC.No.260/1979 and dispose of the same afresh, in accordance with law, and pass fresh orders, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE nj. K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------- O.P.No.33039 OF 2000 J U D G M E N T Dated: 17th March, 2008. -------------------------------