IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2010 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 21368 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PANCHALAN PURAYIL KOTTAN AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.KARIMBAN R/AT PERINGOME AMSOM, P.O PERINGOME. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) NAVAL ACADEMY, PAYYANNUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. V. MANU FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/03/2010, THE COURT ON 16/03/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.21368 OF 2009 (M) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that O.2840 hectors of land in R.S. No.368/2 of Ramanthali Village was acquired for the purpose of Naval Academy, Ezhimala. Award was passed, compensation was paid and reference under Section 18 was not sought. 2. Thereafter relying on the judgment in LAR.No.186/87 petitioner submitted Ext.P1 application under Section 28A. That application was rejected by Ext.P2 order as time barred. Later, once again, relying on the subsequent judgment in LAR.NO.213/87 petitioner submitted Ext.P5 application under Section 28A. That application was rejected by Ext.P6 order stating that his previous application was already rejected. Ext.P7 application made under Section 28A(3) was also rejected for similar reasons as per Ext.P8. It is in these circumstances that this writ petition is filed praying to quash Exts.P6 and P8. 3. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in Muraleedharan Pillai V. State of Kerala (1999(3)KLT WPC.No. 21368/09 :2 : 846) and in Madhavi V. Special Tahsildar (2003(1) KLT 813), this court has held that a subsequent application is not maintainable if the rejection of the previous application under Section 28A is on merits and not for technical reasons. A reading of Ext.P2 shows that the first application was rejected as time barred and therefore this is not an order passed on merits. If so, Ext.P5 application made by the petitioner was maintainable and therefore, Ext.P6 order rejecting Ext.P5 application has to be set aside. Consequently, Ext.P8 order rejecting Ext.P7 also has to be set aside. 4. Accordingly, Exts.P6 and P8 orders are set aside and the 2nd respondent is directed to pass fresh orders on Ext.P5 application made by the petitioner. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible with notice to the parties. It is made clear that this court has not dealt with the contentions of both the parties on merit and the contention of the petitioner is left open. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/