IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 12TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 24260 of 2004(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. V.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, AYYATTU VEETTIL, KARICHAL, VEEYAPURAM, HARIPAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. GOWRI AMMA, SARASWATHY AMMA, AYYATTU VEETTIL, KARICHAL, VEEYAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI SRI.R.SREEDHARAN NAIR SMT.SABINA JAYAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), N.H.ALAPPUZHA. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 23-10-2003 IN LAR NO.41/02 AND 42/02 OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB JUDGE, ALAPPUZHA /True Copy/ PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).No. 24260 OF 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT Under challenge in this writ petition is Ext.P1 award of the reference court. The reference court answering the reference under Section 18 held that the reference itself is incompetent since the application for reference is filed by the petitioners beyond six weeks of receiving notice under section 12(2). 2. Sri.R.Rajasekharan Pillai, learned counsel for the petitioners would forcefully submit on the authority of the judgment of a Division Bench of this court in Special Tahsildar v. Kallu ( 2000(3) KLT 71) that once the reference court receives reference, it is the duty of that court to answer the reference on merits since all references made by the land acquisition officers are to be presumed to be valid references. 3. Resisting the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Basant Balaji, learned Government Pleader would draw my attention to a subsequent judgment of another Division Bench of WPC.No.24260/04 2 this court in Pathootty v. District Collector ( 2004(3) KLT 348) and to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohammed Hasnuddin v. The State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1979 Supreme Court 404). It has been held by this court in Pathootty's case that the reference court has got the power to go into the question of validity of the reference made by the land acquisition officer. In fact in Pathootty's case the Bench referred to the judgment in Kallu's case and observed that the ratio of the judgment in Kallu's case is only that it is valid reference applications which can be legally referred to the court by the Land Acquisition Officer. Pathootty's case was a case where the validity of the reference was disputed in the context of the question whether the claimant received the original compensation under protest. The argument of Sri.Ragasekharan Pillai was that in Kallu's case (Special Tahsildar v. Kallu ( 2000(3) KLT 71)) the issue was the same and that the correctness of that decision was not doubted by the subsequent Division Bench 4. But the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohammed's case (Mohammed Hasnuddin v. The State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1979 WPC.No.24260/04 3 Supreme Court 404) is directly on the question whether the court can consider whether the reference application was time barred. It has been held by the Supreme Court as follows: “ The court functioning under the Act being a tribunal of special jurisdiction, it is its duty to see that the reference made to it by the Collector under section 18 complies with the conditions laid down therein so as to give the court jurisdiction to hear the reference. In deciding the question of jurisdiction in a case of reference under S. 18 by the Collector to the court, the court is certainly not acting as a court of appeal; it is only discharging the elementary duty of satisfying itself that a reference which it is called upon to decide is a valid and proper reference according to the provisions of the Act under which it is made. That is a basic and preliminary duty which no tribunal can possibly avoid. The court has, therefore, jurisdiction to decide whether the reference was made beyond the period prescribed by the proviso to sub section (2) of S.18 of the Act and if it finds that it was so made, decline to answer reference.” The judgment of the Supreme Court quoted above should decide WPC.No.24260/04 4 the issue against the petitioners. The writ petition will stand dismissed. However, it is made clear that the judgment of the reference court and this judgment declining interference with the said judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioners applying for re-determination of the compensation under Section 28A on the basis of any relevant court award. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No.24260/04 5