IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2009 / 22ND POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 883 of 2009(E) ------------------------ LAR.173/2001 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE KERALA MINERALS & METALS LTD., SANKARAMANGALAM, CHAVARA, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER ( P & A ). BY ADV. SRI.E.K.MADHAVAN SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON SMT.UMA GOPINATH SRI.DEVIDAS.U.K RESPONDENT(S): --------------- DAMODARAN, PUATHARAVADAKKETHIL, PONMANA, KOLLAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2009,ALONG WITH W.P.(C).No.882/2009 AND OTHER CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C)Nos. 882, 883, 918, 1066, 1087& 1088 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T In all these cases, the requisitioning authority in six Land Acquisition cases is the petitioner. They are challenging orders of the reference court refusing to consider the issue of limitation in filing application for reference as a preliminary point, on the ground that although the date of receipt of notice of award is admitted there is dispute regarding the date of filing of the reference application for resolving which evidence has to be taken. 2. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner. What has been stated by the reference court in the impugned orders is as follows: “ In the present case the award notice is seen served on 6/7/00 endorsed on the back side of the copy of the notice. But in the reference application (Form No. 22A) (Rule 16A) the date of receipt of notice of award is noted by the claimant as 31/7/00. There is no evidence to show when the Land Acquisition officer has received the reference application. The reference application is dated 6/8/2000. The contention of the petitioner that the reference application was filed only on 8/9/00 is not supported by any evidence. More over with respect to the date of service of notice also there is dispute only after taking evidence in detail the dispute can be resolved. I find that the question of limitation in this case raised by the petitioner cannot be determined as a preliminary issue. It requires evidence and can be considered along with the merits of the reference after recording the entire evidence. Hence this IA is dismissed.” From the same it is very clear that although the date of receipt of the notice of award is admitted, there is a genuine dispute regarding the date when the application for reference of the claims have been received by the W.P(C)Nos. 882, 883, 918, 1066, 1087& 1088 of 2009 - 2 - land acquisition authority. That being so, I do not think that the decision of the reference court is in any way bad. I am also of opinion that, as far as possible, piece meal, adjudication of any case should be avoided. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in these writ petitions and accordingly, the same are dismissed. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs