IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2008 / 15TH ASWINA 1930 RP.No. 997 of 2008(H) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.21073/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. SHIJU, S/O.SHYMALA DEVI, 34 YEARS CHENJERI PUTHEN VEEDU, PADINJATTINKARA KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM, R/AT.PUTHENMADATHIL VEEDU, PERINGAZHA KARA, HMT COLONY, KALAMASSERY, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM-683 503. 2. SHIBU, S/O.SHYMALA DEVI, 30 YEARS CHENJERI PUTHEN VEEDU, DO.DO. 3. SHYMALA DEVI, D/O.SARALA DEVI, AGED 60, , DO.DO. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.KURIKESU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT BUILDING THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 3. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LA)NO.2, KOLLAM (NOW THE OFFICE IS SHIFTED TO KALLADA IRRIGATION PROJECT COMPOUND, KOTTIYAM) BY G.P. SRI.BASANTH BALAJI THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,J. ------------------------ R.P. 997/2008 IN W.P.(C)No.21073/2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of October, 2008 O R D E R It was very strenuous and appealing submissions which were addressed before me by Sri. T.K.Kurikesu, learned counsel for the review petitioners. The learned counsel would draw my attention to the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in Indira Devi v. Special Tahsildar (1991 (1) KLT 33). The said judgment is certainly to the effect that the date of the award for the purpose of making application under Section 28A is the date of knowledge of the award. The applicants' case that they came to have knowledge of the award only on 19/6/2001 and they have submitted application as soon as they got copy of the award appears to be correct. If the judgment of the Division Bench is followed, it will have to be found that the application is not barred by limitation. 2. Sri.Basant Balaji, learned Government Pleader would cite the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of A.P. And Another v. Marri Venkaiah and Others (2003) 7 Supreme R.P..No.997/2008 2 Court Cases 280) and also in Tota Ram v. State of U.P. And Others (1997) 6 Supreme Court Cases 280). Those two decisions are clearly to the effect that period of limitation for filing application under Section 28A starts not from the date of knowledge of the award of the court, but from the date of the award. The Supreme Court is of the view that though Section 28A is a beneficial provision enacted as a welfare measure to promote the cause of illiterate and inarticulate people belonging to the lower stratas of the society, they have to be vigilant in getting information regarding the awards passed in the case of other persons who have sought for reference under Section 18 so that they can get certified copy of those awards and make application under Section 28A within the statutory period of three months. Following the views taken by the Supreme Court, it is to be found that the grounds raised are liable to be repelled. The Review Petition will stand dismissed. No costs. (PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE) dpk