IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2008 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 1128 of 2006(H) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. THANKAMMA, W/O.GOPALA PILLAI, VERENIL KIZHAKATHIL HOUSE, VETTUVENIMURI, PALLIPAD VILLAGE, HARIPAD P.O. 2. RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, S/O.GOPALA PILLAI, SARASWATHI BHAVANAM, VETTUVENI MURI, HARIPAD P.O. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SUDHEENDRAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR, L.A.(GENERAL), ALAPPUZHA. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.LATHA THANKAPPAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX(WPC 1128/06) PETITIONERS' EXTS.: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 4.11.2000 ISSUED BY THE TAHASILDAR, KARTHIKAPALLY TALUK. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.1.2004 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 13.2.2004 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.1128 of 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 27th May, 2008 JUDGMENT No representation for the petitioners. But it is seen that the Writ Petition is founded on good grounds. Under challenge in this Writ Petition is Ext.P2 order of the Land Acquisition Officer. By Ext.P2, the application filed by the petitioners under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act for redetermination of the compensation payable for their acquired properties was dismissed on the ground that certified copy of the court judgment relied on in the application was produced after the statutory period of three months. This court in Sahid v.District Collector (1997(1) KLT 461) has ruled that it is not obligatory that the court judgment relied on in an application under Section 28A should be produced along with that application. Obviously, the application under Section 28A was filed within the statutory period. Following the judgment in Sahid v. District Collector(supra), Ext.P2 is quashed and the 2nd respondent is directed to restore the application under Section 28A filed by the petitioners back to files and dispose of the same in accordance with law taking into account the certified copy which was produced by the petitioners though belatedly. The final disposal of the application W.P.C.No.1128/06 - 2 - under Section 28A will be made by the 2nd respondent at the earliest and at any rate within four months of receiving copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE