IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2008 / 17TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 21870 of 2008(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.V.JOSEPH, S/O.VARKEY, AGED 68 YEARS, KOTTARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KAMBALAKKAD (P.O), KALPETA, WAYANAD. BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) KARAPUZHA BANASURA SAGAR IRRIGATION PROJECT, KALPETA, WAYANAD. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD. BY SRI.BENNY VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 21870 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this 8th August, 2008 JUDGMENT The learned Government Pleader submits that he has not been able to get instructions regarding the status of Ext.P1 application claimed to have been submitted by the petitioner. Dr.George Abraham, the learned counsel for the petitioners asserts that Ext.P1 was submitted by the petitioner before the first respondent and that the first respondent's diffidence to consider Ext.P1 is only in view of the pendency of the appeal against the judgment relied on in Ext.P1. Drawing my attention to Ext.P2, which is my judgment in a case filed by the petitioner's brother, the learned counsel submits that pendnecy of the appeal before this court against the judgment relied on in Ext.P1 cannot be a good ground for not considering Ext.P1. 2. Ext.P2 judgment was passed by me following the judgment of a learned single judge of this court in Thomas v. District Collector (2000 (2) KLT 160). But, in subsequent decisions including the decision in Abdul Rahiman v. Special Tahsildar (2007 (2) KLT 197) and the decision of the Supreme Court in Baburam v. State of U.P. (1995 (2) SCC 689) it has been held that when appeal is pending against the court award relied on in the application under Section 28A, the Land Acquisition Officer shall keep application pending awaiting decision of the court of appeal. In the present case, it is obvious that the appeal is pending against the court award in L.A.R. No.86/1987. In view of the pendnecy of that appeal it is not proper to insist that the first respondent shall dispose of Ext.P1 immediately. I dispose of this writ petition directing the first respondent to keep Ext.P1 pending till such time as the petitioner produces a copy of the judgment of this court in the appeal filed against the award in L.A.R. No.86/1987. Once copy of the judgment is produced, the first respondent will dispose of Ext.P1 taking into account modification, if any, made by this High Court to the award of the reference court at the earliest. At any rate final orders on Ext.P1 will be passed within two months of the petitioner producing a copy of the appellate judgment. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE dpk