IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 13TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 6198 of 2008(K) -------------------------------- LAR.26/2001 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SINDHU, KATTIL VEEDU, PONMANA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT BHAVANI MANDIRAM,ELIPPAKKULAM P.O. VALLIKUNNAM, ALAPPUZHA-690 503. BY ADV. SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM, KOLLAM-691 013. 2. THE KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, SANKARAMANGALAM, CHAVARA, KOLLAM. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER R2 BY SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE R2 BY ADVS. SRI.E.K.MADHAVAN, SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA, SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS, SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.6198/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REFERENCE DTD. 18.8.2000 FILED BY THE PETITIOENR BEFORE THE LAND ACAQUISITION OFFICER. P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 15.10.2007 IN IA. NO.4363/2007 IN LAR. NO.26/2001 PASSED BY THE ADDL. SUB COURT, KOLLAM. P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 19.11.2007 IN IA. 4363/2007 IN LAR. N.26/2001 PASSED BY THE ADDL. SUB COURT, KOLLAM. P4:- COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD DTD. 30.7.1998 ISSUED BY THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA. P5:- COPY OF THE RATION CARD DTD. NIL ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER'S FAMILY. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.6198 Of 2008 ---------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the claimant in L.A.R.No.26/2001 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Kollam. A small extent of 0.59 Ares of land owned by the petitioner was acquired for mining purpose for KMML. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award. The petitioner submitted an application to the District Collector with a request to refer the matter for determination of the court. The Land Acquisition Officer, after being satisfied that the application for reference was filed within the statutory period, referred the matter to the Additional Sub Court, Kollam and numbered as L.A.R.No.26/2001. 2. The second respondent is the requisitioning authority. The requisitioning authority filed I.A.No.4363/2007 praying to hear the question of limitation. According to the second respondent, the reference is barred by limitation and therefore prayed for dismissal of the reference case as not maintainable. Ext.P3 is the order passed by the reference court holding that the application filed by the petitioner on 18.8.2000 is beyond the ::2:: W.P.(C).No.6198 Of 2008 statutory period of six weeks and therefore reference application is barred by limitation. 3. Compensation claimed by the petitioner is for acquisition of 0.59 Ares of land owned by her. The petitioner is aged 52. She along with her husband and children are residing at Vallikkunnam in Alappuzha district for the last several years. The eldest child of the petitioner is aged 28 years. The petitioner has got married approximately 30 years back. Exts.P4 identity card & P5 ration card were produced by the petitioner to show that she is residing along with husband in her husband’s house which is more than 50 kilometers away from her parental house. After passing the award the Land Acquisition Officer issued notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. The address shown in the notice is the address of her parental house. The petitioner submits that she left her parental house after marriage and she is residing along with her husband in the place which is at a distance of more than 50 kilometers. Admittedly, notice was not served on the petitioner. The notice was served on the father of the petitioner. ::3:: W.P.(C).No.6198 Of 2008 4. No information as regards the passing of the award has been sent to the claimant who is the only person interested in claiming compensation. Admittedly, notice was not served on her and notice was served on her father. The service of notice is therefore defective. Learned counsel for the second respondent pointed out that the address shown by the petitioner in the reference case is her parental address. 5. The reference court found that notice issued under Section 12(2) was seen served on 3.7.2000 and that the father of the claimant had accepted notice on her behalf. The reference application was filed by the claimant on 18.8.2000. If the date of service is taken as 3.7.2000 there is a delay of 4 days in filing the application. The question is whether there is proper service of notice. It is not the address that matters. Notice on the claimant is important. Admittedly, notice was not served on her. She is not the occupant of the family house and therefore the notice served on the father instead of the claimant is irregular and illegal. If the claimant is not available in the address shown in Section 12(2) notice the notice should have been directed to the correct address where she is residing. The said act of service ::4:: W.P.(C).No.6198 Of 2008 of notice on the father instead to the petitioner is not due service for the purpose of compliance under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, the authorities shall have the duty to entertain the reference application filed within six months. If that be so, the application submitted on 18.8.2000 is within time. Ext.P3 order is therefore unsustainable. Ext.P3 order is set aside. Additional Sub Court, Kollam shall try and dispose of L.A.R.No.26 of 2001 on merits in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of as above. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-