IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2008 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 10925 of 2006(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SUSHEELA AMMA, W/O. SURENDRAN, SUJAHA BHAVAN, PUTHENCODE P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SARIN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND AQUISITION, SOUTHERN CIRCLE, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX in W.P.(C) 10925/2006 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER ON 11.1.2005. EXT.P2 PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER NO.K.6.65666/05 DATED 25.10.2005 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.10925 OF 2006 ------------------------------- Dated this the 8th April, 2008. J U D G M E N T The grievance of the petitioner is that application filed under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was not even accepted by the Land Acquisition Officer on the ground that it is filed beyond the time. It is also contended that no individual notice was served, but the notice was served on the husband of the petitioner in her presence. It is true that in Harikumar v. Special Tahsildar (2007 (1) KLT 277), a learned Single Judge of this Court took a view that when the claimant is available, notice shall be served on the claimant itself, and not to any other adult member. In Itty Kurian and another v. Union of India (AIR 1962 Kerala 267), a learned Single Judge of this Court took a view that service of notice on the husband of the petitioner while she was present is not valid. But in this case, on 22.9.2005, petitioner herself has filed petition before the Land Acquisition Officer stating that the notice was accepted by her husband, and she was unable to file a claim within 42 days, as her husband was hospitalised. Though she produced a medical certificate to the effect that her husband was undergoing treatment till W.P.(C) No.10925/2006 2 31.8.2007, the records show that on 2.8.2005, her husband appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer to get back the documents produced by him. So, the decision stated above can have no application to the facts of this case. It is not a case in which the petitioner is without any remedy. She can file a petition under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, in case, any other land owner gets additional compensation, provided that property was acquired under the very same notification. So, without prejudice to the claim of the petitioner to file application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, if the same is permissible, the writ petition is closed. K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE nj.