IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 13TH JUNE 2008 / 23RD JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 12934 of 2005(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ AISHA BEEVI @ ASHIKA BEEVI, W/O.LATE HAMEED KUNJU, THEKKEKATTIL HOUSE, PATHIYANKARA, THRIKUNNAPPALLY VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.R.REJI SMT.SHIVA RAJA RESHMI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, NATIONAL WATERWAYS NO.III, ALAPPUZHA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA THANKAPPAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.C.NO.12934/05 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT FILED BY THE ADDITIONAL CLAIMANTS 2 TO 8 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER'S HUSBAND DATED 20-6-2000 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROTEST STATEMENT DATED 7-6-2000 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT DATED 15-3-01 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROTEST STATEMENT DATED 30-1-02 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS EXT.R2(1) COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 30-1-2002 /True Copy/ PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).No.12934 OF 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Grievance of the petitioner who was the the first claimant in L.A.R. No. 47/01, a reference case under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act before the Sub Court, Mavelikkara, is that the question of determination of the correct compensation payable for her acquired properties extending to 2 Ares 60 Sq. metres has not been referred to the court . The petitioner has produced Ext.P3 and contends that Ext.P3 is “ a statement of protest” which is liable to be construed as an application for reference. The petitioner has also produced Ext.P5 and complains that Ext.P5 wherein the prayer is that a reference under Section 18 should be made to the court, has not been favourably considered. The stand taken by the Government is that Ext.P3 cannot be construed as a reference application because per se Ext.P3 is a claim statement filed in response to notice under Section 9(1). Copy of Ext.P3 produced along with the writ petition and the original of Ext.P3 which is available in the files produced by the learned Government Pleader will show that Ext.P3 was a claim statement and not a WPC.No.12934/05 2 document recording protest of the award of compensation or containing request for reference under Section 18. Now the question is whether Ext.P5 can be construed as a valid reference application. The files will show that the original of Ext.P5 is not submitted before the Land Acquisition Officer. Files however contain a letter dated 23-04-2003 submitted by the petitioner's advocate wherein he refers to Ext.P5. Even if Ext.P5 had been submitted to the land acquisition officer on the date it bears i.e. 30/01/2002,then also the same would not have been a valid application since the award was passed with notice to the petitioner as early as on 07/06/2000. In other words, Ext.P5 is hopelessly barred by limitation. Under these circumstances, I find no reason to grant the relief sought for and I dismiss the writ petition. However, it is made clear that this judgment will be stand in the way of the petitioner making necessary application under Section 28A for redetermination of the compensation on the basis of relevant court judgments. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No.12934/05 3