IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2010 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 32235 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RASHEED KHAN, S/O. MUHAMMED HANEEFA, PADINJATTE VEEDU, KUTTIKKADA P.O., KOLLAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, (L.A.)NO.I, KOLLAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.32235 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner owned 1 Acre and 3 cents of land comprised in Re-Sy.No.632/14 of Eravipuram Village, Kollam Taluk, Kollam District. The said parcel of land was acquired at a point of time when the petitioner was employed abroad. Though he challenged the acquisition through his wife by filing W.P.(C) No.27667 of 2008, it was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court, as evidenced by Ext.P1. The Special Leave Petition filed before the Apex Court was also dismissed as per Ext.P2 order. Later, an award was passed on 5.2.2009. It is stated that the award was not passed in the presence of the petitioner and he was at that point of time abroad. Long thereafter, the petitioner submitted Ext.P7 representation dated 31.8.2009 to the second respondent requesting him to refer the dispute regarding the quantum of compensation to the Sub Court, Kollam. He had not received the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer at that point of time and he received the compensation amount later under protest on 6.10.2009. Shortly thereafter, the second respondent informed the petitioner by Ext.P8 memo that his application for reference is belated and therefore is rejected. Ext.P8 is under challenge in this writ petition wherein the W.P.(C) No.32235 of 2009 2 petitioner seeks a direction to the second respondent to refer the dispute regarding the compensation to the Sub Court, in terms of section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 22.10.2010, the petitioner was directed to produce the original of his passport. It was accordingly produced on 1.11.2010. On a perusal of the passport, it was noticed that though the petitioner was abroad on 5.2.2009, when the award was passed, he had come back to India on 6.2.2009 and had returned to U.A.E. on 18.2.2009 (vide pages 8 and 19 of Passport bearing No.F5336896). On 1.11.2010, the learned Government Pleader also submitted that though notice of award was attempted to be served on the petitioner, he refused to accept the same. The learned Government Pleader was therefore directed to make available the relevant files. 3. When the writ petition was taken up for hearing today, the learned Government Pleader made available the relevant files. The learned Government Pleader fairly conceded that though the notice of award under rule 13(2) of the Land Acquisition (Kerala) Rules, 1990 was sent by post on 2.6.2009 to the petitioner, the notice was sent by ordinary post and not by registered post, and there is W.P.(C) No.32235 of 2009 3 nothing to indicate that the petitioner refused to accept the notice. The files do not contain any material to show that notice of the award under rule 13(2) was attempted to be served on the petitioner by registered post or tendered to him by messenger. Further, the notice under rule 13(2) was sent under certificate of posting to an address which is different from the address furnished by the petitioner in W.P. (C) No.27667 of 2008, which was disposed of by Ext.P1 judgment. In such circumstances, though the notice of award under Rule 13(2) of the Land Acquisition (Kerala) Rules, 1990 was despatched under Certificate of Posting on 2.6.2009, it cannot be said that the notice of award was duly served on the petitioner at that time or thereafter. The petitioner had admittedly appeared before the second respondent on 31.8.2009 and submitted the original of Ext.P7. The award was also not passed in the presence of the petitioner. There is also no material to show that the notice of the award was served on the petitioner at any time prior to 31.8.2009. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the application for reference filed on 31.8.2009 (Ext.P7) has to be treated as one filed in time. Further, the petitioner had also received the compensation amount under protest. I am therefore persuaded to hold that the stand taken by the second W.P.(C) No.32235 of 2009 4 respondent in Ext.P8 cannot be sustained. In the result, I allow this writ petition, quash Ext.P8 and direct the second respondent to refer the dispute raised by the petitioner regarding compensation to the competent civil court having jurisdiction. Necessary steps in that regard shall be taken within one month from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before the second respondent. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.