IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2008 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 11640 of 2008(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ THOMAS JOSEPH, S/O.LATE OUSEPH, AGED 52, PARAYIL (CHERADI VALIYAVEETTIL) PLASSANAL POST, KOTTAYAM 668657. BY ADV. SRI.BENHUR JOSEPH MANAYANI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A)GENERAL, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 SRI.SHYSON P. GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 11640 of 2008 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of June , 2008 JUDGMENT The issue, which arises for decision in this writ petition, is whether the question of determination of the correct compensation payable for the properties which were acquired in this case is liable to be referred to the competent civil court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The stand taken by the Government in the counter affidavit is that reference cannot be made since the application for reference was made by the writ petitioner long after the expiry of the statutory period of six weeks from service of award notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act. But it is seen from the pleadings that the original award was passed for a total amount of Rs.3,63,418/- in favour of Sri.Ouseph Joseph, father of the petitioner. Ouspeh Joseph was already dead and gone three years ago. The petitioner on receiving the award notice sent to late Ouspen Joseph by the awarding officer on 26.5.2006 would submit objection before the awarding officer informing that his father is no more. In the meanwhile, it appears that portions of the structure, which was subject matter of the WPC No.11640/2008 2 award and in respect of which compensation had been determined under the award, was removed necessitating passage of a modified award by the Land Acquisition Officer. Modified award was accordingly passed in favour of the present petitioner for a much lesser amounts than the amount originally awarded. Exts.P2 and P3 applications for reference were filed upon receiving notice regarding the above mentioned modified order. 2. It is not disputed before me that Exts.P2 and P3 were submitted by the petitioner within 42 days of his being given notice of the modified award. This being the position, I am of the view that regard should be had to the legislative intendment, which underlies Section 18 of the Act, and the petitioner should be given an opportunity to have the question of the correct compensation payable for the properties, which was actually acquired, to be decided by a competent civil court. According to the counter affidavit, Exts.P2 and P3 have been rejected on the ground of limitation. According to me, in spite of the rejection of Exts.P2 and P3, the Land Acquisition Officer should reconsider the issue and make a reference of the question under Section 18 of the Act to the concerned court. 3. Accordingly, this writ petition will stand allowed issuing the following orders; WPC No.11640/2008 3 i). The order passed by he Land Acquisition Officer rejecting Exts.P2 and P3 is quashed. ii). The Land Acquisition Officer is directed to reconsider Exts.P2 and P3 and take decision favourably to the petitioner and to refer the question of determining the correct compensation payable for the properties actually acquired to the Subordinate Judge's court, Pala at the earliest. At any rate, fresh orders in compliance with the above direction will be passed within two months of receiving a copy of this judgment. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE dpk