IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 25TH OCTOBER 2011 / 3RD KARTHIKA 1933 OP(C).No. 3431 of 2011(O) ------------------------------------- [L.A.R.NO.10/2010 OF SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA] .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- P.T.KUNJAMMA, W/O.K.V.MAMMEN,KALLUPURACKAL HOUSE, NANNUVAKKAD,PATHANAMTHITTA, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT KALLUPURACKAL HOUSE, PEACE LAND,SANTHOSH JUNCTION, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADVS. SRI.T.B.HOOD, SMT.M.ISHA. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA 689 645 2. PATHANAMTHITTA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATHANAMTHITTA 689 645. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. VINCENT. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.(C).NO.3431/2011-O: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE B DAIRY PROCEEDINGS IN LAR NO.10/2010 OF SUB COURT,PATHANAMTHITTA. EXT.P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 1.2.2011 IN LAR NO.10/2010 OF SUB COURT,PATHANAMTHITTA EXT.P3: A TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.282/2011 IN LAR.NO.10/2011 OF SUB COURT,PATHANAMTHITTA EXT.P4: A TRUE COPY CLAIM STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER EXT.P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.7.2011 IN I.A.NO.282/2011 IN LAR NO.10/2011 OF SUB COURT,PATHANAMTHITTA RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Prv. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.3431 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of October, 2011. JUDGMENT Learned Government Pleader takes notice for the 1st respondent. Standing counsel takes notice for the 2nd respondent. 2. Petitioner is the claimant in L.A.R.No.10 of 2010 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Pathanamthitta. 15.073 cents belonging to the petitioner was acquired for the 2nd respondent. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded `20,39,108/-. Since compensation awarded was not to the satisfaction of petitioner, there was a request for reference, a reference was made and it was taken on file by the learned Sub Judge as L.A.R.No.10 of 2010. Case was posted on 20.05.2010 for appearance of parties. Parties appeared and requested time for filing statement. Case was adjourned to 06.08.2010. There was no sitting for learned Sub Judge from 06.08.2010 until 01.02.2010. On 01.02.2010 learned Sub Judge recorded in the proceedings sheet that parties have not filed statements and passed Ext.P2, judgment where it is stated that in spite of grant of several opportunities, parties have not filed claim statements, parties are not interested in the case, no document or other evidence is produced (to prove the claim for enhanced land value) and that there is nothing on record to show that compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is not just and adequate. The reference was answered accordingly. Petitioner OP(C)No.3431/2011 2 filed Ext.P3, application for review of Ext.P2, judgment. Along with that, Ext.P4, claim statement was also filed. Learned Sub Judge dismissed the said application by Ext.P5 observing that there is no ground to review the judgment. 3. It is contended by learned counsel that there was no willful laches or delay on the part of the petitioner in not filing the claim statement. It is pointed out from Ext.P1, copy of B diary that the case was posted on 06.08.2010 for filing claim statement. But, since then onwards learned Sub Judge had no sitting until 01.02.2010. The statement was also not filed. Learned Sub Judge passed Ext.P2, judgment on 01.02.2010. It is also submitted that the property involved is situated in the heart of Pathanamthitta Municipality and that Exts.P2 and P5, judgment and order have deprived petitioner of her right to get real compensation for the land acquired. 4. Learned Government Pleader submitted that there is inordinate delay in filing the claim statement and that even from 01.02.2010 there was delay in filing the claim statement. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has supplemented the argument of the learned Government Pleader. 5. No doubt Ext.P2, judgment is amenable to appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. But when there was no willful laches or failure on the part of the claimant and preferring of an appeal involves payment of huge amount by way of court fee, it is well within the power of this Court to invoke power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. (see ...................(2007 (2) KLT 588). I must bear in mind that in this case petitioner had filed Ext.P3, application for review of Ext.P2, judgment and along with Ext.P3, application OP(C)No.3431/2011 3 claimant also filed Ext.P4, statement. On going through the records I am not inclined to think that there was willful laches or delay on the part of petitioner. I must also bear in mind that if petitioner is entitled to get the real compensation for the land acquired she should get it. 6. So far as Ext.P5, order on Ext.P3, application for review of Ext.P2, judgment is concerned, learned Sub Judge has taken the view that there is no error apparent on the face of the record. Having regard to the relevant aspects of the matter I am inclined to think that the learned Sub Judge ought to have allowed Ext.P3, application in the ends of justice. Resultantly this Original Petition is allowed. Ext.P5, order is set aside and Ext.P3, application will stand allowed. Consequently Ext.P2, judgment will stand reviewed. Learned Sub Judge shall receive Ext.P4, claim statement filed by the petitioner. In case respondents wish to file statement on their part learned Sub Judge shall give them opportunity for that and decide the reference after giving parties opportunity to adduce evidence. Parties shall appear in the court below on 21.11.2011. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks