IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 25TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 23934 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: PETITIONER ---------------------- GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, S/O. NARAYANA PILLAI, KUZHAKKATTU HOUSE, KAREEPUZHA, PERINAD P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VIJU THOMAS SMT.M.MEENA JOHN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT ----------------------- SPECIAL THAHASILDAR (L&A) NATIONAL HIGHWAY, KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.23934/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS; EXT.P1: COPY OF THE AWARD NO.10/98-99(22) IN LAC NO.153/98 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE DATED 16/11/2006 IN L.A.R. NO.113/99 OF ADDL. SUB COURT, KOLLAM. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.LAC 153/98 DATED 25/10/2007 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT SPECIAL TAHSILDAR. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,J. ------------------------ W.P.(C)No.23934 of 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent land acquisition officer to refer the question of determination of the correct compensation payable for the petitioner's acquired property to the competent land Acquisition court. According to the petitioner, his properties were acquired and award notice was served on him on 16/3/1999. The compensation amount was received by him under protest on 20/3/1999. On the same day he submitted application under Section 18 for reference. According to him, no information was given to him by the respondent regarding the fate of the reference application submitted by him. The properties of his neighbours also acquired pursuant to the very same section 4(1) notification. They also received compensation for their properties under protest on the same day and filed similar reference applications. In their cases references were made and WPC.No.23934/2008 2 answered favourably by the court. Ext.P2 dated 16/11/2006 is the judgment so passed by the reference court in favour of one of the neighbours of the petitioner. On coming to know about Ext.P2, the petitioner applied under the Right to Information Act for information and then he has received Ext.P3 reply. In Ext.P3 it is stated that reference application submitted by the petitioner was rejected since it was time barred. According to the petitioner, the application was not time barred at all. 2. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the land Acquisition officer, wherein it is stated that the compensation amount was received by the petitioner under protest on 29/3/1999, but it is contended that reference application was submitted only on 29/4/1999. It is specifically stated that as per the register of reference application available in the office of the respondent the date of receipt of the reference application is recorded as 29/4/1999. 3. In view of the above counter affidavit, I passed the following order; “ G.P. Takes notice for the respondent. G.P. is directed to make available for purusal WPC.No.23934/2008 3 the file containing original of Ext.P3 and other related papers pertaining to the award. Post on 28/8/2008”. 4. The learned Government Pleader would submit on 28/8/2008 that the original of the reference application concededly filed by the petitioner is not available in the files. As sought for by him, time was given on 5/9/2008 till 16/9/2008 for production of the original application for reference. It was clarified on that day if the original application is not produced by 16/9/2008, necessary adverse inferences will be drawn against the Government. 5. Today when the case came up for hearing, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the original of the reference application is not traceable. Thus, in my opinion, there is justification for drawing adverse inferences against the Government and in proceeding on the basis that the application for reference was submitted by the petitioner on time. At the same time I notice merit in the submission of the learned Government Pleader that there is lethargy on the part of the WPC.No.23934/2008 4 petitioner in approaching this court and in approaching the respondent. As regards Ext.P2, the learned counsel would submit, and I think correctly also, that Ext.P2 does not refer to an acquisition pursuant to the very same Section 4 (1) notification. Whatever that be since it is common ground that at the instance of the petitioner's neighbours references were made under Section 18, in all probability those parties would have received notice from the reference court regarding the registration of the references at least by early 2002. 6. Under the above circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner himself is to blame for the delay which was occasioned in the matter from 1.1.2002 to 15.10.2007. As a penalty for that apparent delay, it is ordered that the redetermined compensation amount will not carry statutory interest during the above period. 7. The result of the above discussion is that the writ petition will stand allowed. The respondent is directed to make a reference under Section 18 for determination of the question of correct compensation to the competent sub court within six weeks of receiving a copy of this judgment. The sub court while WPC.No.23934/2008 5 answering the reference on the basis of the evidence to be adduced by the petitioner will order that the additional compensation if any awarded will not carry interest at the statutory rates during the period from 1/1/2002 to 15/10/2007. The writ petition is allowed as above. No costs. (PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE) dpk