IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2009 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 3512 of 2009(R) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MANDAN PRATHAPAN S/O. DAMODHARAN, SANTHI SREE, TRITTY, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DT. BY ADV. SRI.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 2. SPECIAL TAHASILDAR, LA (NH) THALASSERY, GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.3512 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 12th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T Certain properties belonging to the petitioner have been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioner claims to have submitted an application under Section 18 of the Act seeking reference to the court the claim of the petitioner for enhancement of compensation. The same has been rejected by Ext.P1 on the ground that it has been filed out of time. The petitioner submits that he came came to know about Section 12(2) notice only on 28.11.2008, when he received compensation and immediately he filed application under Section 18. According to the petitioner, since he did not receive any Section 12(2) notice, the application submitted by the petitioner on 9.1.2009 is within time. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs: “a) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or order quashing Ext.P1 order passed by the 2nd respondent; b) direct the respondents to refer the matter to the court for determination of the enhanced compensation; c) Declare that the petitioner's application for reference under section 18 of the L.A. Act is within the time limit prescribed by the Act;” 2. The learned Government Pleader has produced acknowledgment of Section 12(2) notice by the petitioner along with a memo dated 9.2.2009. According to the Government Pleader, as w.p.c.3512/09 2 stated in Ext.P1, Section 12(2) notice was acknowledged by the petitioner on 25.11.2008 and therefore, the application under Section 18 filed on 9.1.2009 is out of time. The learned Government Pleader, therefore, supports Ext.P1 order. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an affidavit along with the application for accepting additional documents, Exts.P2 and P3. According to the petitioner, as evidenced by Ext.P2, he was on official tour from 24th to 27th of November, 2008, and therefore, he could not have physically accepted Section 12(2) notice on 25.11.2008. Therefore, according to the petitioner, this was only a mistake. However, the counsel for the petitioner frankly admits that the signature appearing in the Section 12(2) notice in acknowledgment of receipt of the same is that of the petitioner himself. According to the petitioner, he was made to sign the same on 28.11.2008 as having accepted the same on 25.11.2008. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. From the acknowledgment of the petitioner I find that he has not only signed it, but also put date as 25.11.2008 without any objection whatsoever. After having acknowledged notice on 25.11.2008, the petitioner cannot now turn around and say that although he had signed the same on 25.11.2008, he received it only on 28.11.2008. His further contention in the writ petition is that he w.p.c.3512/09 3 never received Section 12 (2) notice at all. Even after 28.11.2008 when he knew about Section 12(2) notice, there was ample time for him to file application under Section 18 within the stipulated time, which he has not done. He waited till 9.1.2009. That being so, I am unable to accept the contention of the petitioner in this regard. In such circumstances, I have no reason to disbelieve the contention of the respondents that the petitioner accepted Section 12(2) notice on 25.11.2008. Admittedly, the petitioner filed application under Section 18 only on 9.1.2009, which is clearly beyond the period of limitation prescribed in Section 18. Therefore, there is no merit in this writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge