IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 7TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 25481 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- CHERUKINIYAN GOVINDAN, S/O. LATE CHERUKINIYAN VITHAL PARATHIKKAD, RAMANTHALI VILLAGE, PALACODE POST-670305 THALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR SRI.GEEN T.MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KANNUR DIST. 2. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A.) OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR EZHIMALA NAVAL ACADEMY, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DIST. BY GP I V PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 25481 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2009 JUDGMENT Cherukiniyan - Vithai filed Ext.P1 application under Section 28A(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Ext.P2 is issued on 31.10.2008 stating that no land in R.S.No.278/8 of Ramanthali Village is seen to have been acquired from that person for the establishment of the Naval Academy at Ezhimala. Ext.P1 application was therefore found to be not entertainable. The petitioner and others filed Ext.P3 on the ground that they are the legal representatives of the aforesaid Vithai who died on 4.9.1997. Ext.P3 is rejected on the ground, again stating that no land has been taken as described therein. 2. The fact of the matter remains that the petitioner and others stand on the basis of documents issued to their predecessor-in-interest Vithai, at the time of acquisition. If there is any conflict in the description of the property or any erroneous mentioning of the survey number, that is a matter to be looked into and decided. It cannot be thrown out at the threshold. Under Wpc 25481/2009 2 such circumstances, the claim of the petitioner and co-heirs deserve consideration. It also needs to be noted that since Vithai died on 4.9.2009, as duly certified, the rejection order Ext.P2 being issued on 31.10.2008, without even affording the legal representatives an opportunity is quite unsustainable. 3. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed, quashing Ext.P2 and P4 and directing the respondents to treat Ext.P3 application, as an application for impleadment in Ext.P1 proceedings and decide on the issue afresh after affording the petitioner and other legal representatives of Vithai an opportunity of being heard. Let this be done within an outer limit of five months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/30/9