IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2009 / 13TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 22361 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. C.A.MOIDEEN KUNHI, S/O.LATE ABDUL KHADER, CHEMBAKA KAINAD VILLAGE P.O.CHANDRAGIRI, KASARAGOD DISTRICT 2. SUHARABI, W/O.LATE MOHAMMED KUNHI KALNAD VILLAGE, P.O.CHANDRAGIRI, KASARGOD DISTRICT 3. AISUMMA ALIAS ASIABI, W/O. KUNHAMOO KALNAD VILLAGE, P.O.CHANDRAGIRI, KASARGOD DISTRICT. 4. HAFSA CA, D/O.DAINABI ALIAS JAINABI KALNAD VILLAGE, P.O.CHANDRAGIRI, KASARGOD PETITIONERS 2 TO 4 REPRESENTED BY THROUGH POWER ATTORNEY HOLDER C.A.MOIDEENKUNHI, IST PETITIONER HEREIN BY ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND ACQUISITION KASARGOD. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARGOD. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.V.MANU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WPC.22361/09 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 3.11.04 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF 0.0445 ARES. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 3.11.04 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF 0.0030 ARES. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 3.11.04 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF 0.0081 ARES. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 3.11.04 OF THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 17.11.04 OF THE 3RD PETITIONER. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 3.11.04 OF THE 4TH PETITIONER. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 21.8.04 IN LAR NO.15/02 AD LAR NO.16/02. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER DATED 14.1.08. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 24.1.08. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER DATED 31.3.09. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF TE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 14.2.08. EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 5.5.09 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. WPC.22361/09 EXT.P13: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 5.5.09 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P14: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 5.5.09 ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P15: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P16: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 5.5.09 ISSUED TO THE 4TH PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P17: TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 27.5.09 SUBMITTING CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P18: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING NO.A 2948/(2) DATED 22.5.09. EXT.P19: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 13.7.09. /TRUE COPY/ THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.22361 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT 1.LAR.Nos.15/02 and 16/02 were decided by a common award dated 21.8.2004 by the Sub Court, Kasaragod. Relying on that award, the petitioners filed different applications under Section 28-A(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Those applications were treated as within time because after the aforesaid order dated 21.8.2004, the applications of the petitioners under Section 28-A(1) were made on 17.11.2004, within the statutory time limit. 2.Though the officer exercising the power of the Collector was obliged to dispose off the applications on the basis of the aforesaid award, the matter, going by the impugned proceedings, was lying apparently because there were some proceedings by way of appeal or otherwise against the common award in LAR.Nos.15/02 and 16/02. But when those proceedings were concluded and the officer exercising the WPC.22361/09 Page numbers power of the Collector was aware of the final amount fixed as compensation in those cases, the matter had to be decided on that basis, rather than require the parties to produce the certified copies of the award relied on by them. The requirement to produce the certified copy of the award relied on in support of an application under Section 28-A(1) is only for the purpose of applicant seeking exemption of period of time from out of the period of limitation on the strength of the different relevant facts and particulars referable to the award that is relied on. In the case in hand, such a situation does not arise. 3.For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is allowed quashing the impugned decision and directing that the applications of the petitioners (Exts.P2 to P6) shall be taken up, considered and orders issued in terms of the Land Acquisition Act, acting on the contents of the common award in LAR.Nos.15/02 and 16/02, in accordance with law. Let this WPC.22361/09 Page numbers be done within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.12/10.