IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2008 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 36457 of 2008(M) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. K.SANTHAMMA, KUTTIVILA (CHARUVILA VEEDU) M.MUTTARA P.O., VELIYAM, KOTTARAKKARA. 2. PURUSHOTHAMAN, PARAPPATA VEEDU, (CHARUVILA VEEDU), H.S.MUTTENRA, P.O.VELIYAM, KOTTARAKKARA. 3. PATHUMUTHU, D/O.KASIMKUNJU, VETTILIL, PUTHENVEEDU, EDAVATTOM, PERINADU, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.AJAYA KUMAR. G SRI.V.K.SANTHOSH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, K.A.NO.11, KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C) No. 36457 OF 2008 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 11th day of December, 2008 J U D G M E N T Applications under Section 28 (A) of the Land Acquisition Act submitted by the petitioners were rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer on the ground that the applications were time barred. The petitioners, then filed application before the District Collector for review. The District Collector considered the application for review and called for a report from the Land Acquisition Officer. The Land Acquisition Officer reported to the District Collector that on his verification, the claim of the petitioners that their applications Under section 28 A were filed in time was found correct. But he expressed his inability to entertain the review for want of power. 2. Heard the counsel for the petitioner Sri. M. Ajay Kumar and Sri. Basant Balaji, Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents. It is clear from Ext.P5 that the claim of the petitioners that the applications filed by them under Section 28 A were filed on time and were not barred by limitation is correct. WPC.36457/08 : 2 : Under the above circumstances, I am of the view that technicalities should not stand in the way of petitioners getting relief, if in substantive law they are eligible for relief. Accordingly I quash Ext.P2 order and direct the second respondent to reconsider the applications u/s 28 A filed by the petitioners (Ext.P3, Ext.P7 and Ext.P8 in Ext.P1)., conduct necessary enquiries into the same and disposed them of in accordance with law on merits after hearing the petitioners. Compliance of the above directions should be made at the earliest and at any rate within 2 months of receiving a copy of this judgment. (PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) KMD