IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2009 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 7139 of 2009(J) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- MUNDIYADI PERACHUKUTTY, S/O.CHEKKUTTY, AGED 70 YEARS, EAST HILL P.O., KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. MR.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), KOZHIKODE. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.7139 of 2009-J = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 26th day of May, 2009. JUDGMENT 1.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 2.A piece of land was acquired from the petitioner under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Thereafter, the Sub Court, Kozhikode decided LAR.420/1999 on 28.11.2001. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to seek revision of compensation under Section 28A(1) of the Act on the strength of that award of court. However, he filed the application under Section 28A(1) beyond the time prescribed for such purpose. He filed the application on 16.7.2002 with the copy of the award in LAR.420/1999. According to him, he applied for the copy of that award on 1.1.2002 and obtained WP(C)7139/09 -: 2 :- the same only on 20.5.2002. He, therefore, contends that there is no delay in filing the application under Section 28A(1), however that, the Special Tahsildar (LA) has issued Ext.P3 communication stating that the District Collector has refused to entertain the application on the ground that it is belated. 3.Whether the application filed by the petitioner under Section 28A(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is barred by limitation and whether he is entitled to exclusion of any period of time as claimed by him are matters on which the petitioner was entitled to be heard by the competent authority. Obviously, that has not been done. Under such circumstances, Ext.P3 cannot stand. In the result, Ext.P3 is quashed and the second respondent or the third respondent, as the case may be, shall take back Ext.P2 application of the petitioner to file and hear the petitioner or his WP(C)7139/09 -: 3 :- duly authorized representative or counsel on the question of limitation and then, issue a decision in accordance with law. Let the needful be done within three months. All other issues are left open and it is clarified that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the matter. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/010609