IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2010 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 36382 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- 1. KUNNOOL SAFIYA, D/O. LATE ALIYUMMA, KUNNOOL HOUSE, RAMANTHALI AMSOM, ETTIKULAM DESOM, ETTIKULAM.P.O., TALIPARAMBU TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. KUNNOOL HAMEED, S/O. LATE ALIYUMMA, KUNNOOL HOUSE, RAMANTHALI AMSAM, ETTIKULAM DESAM, ETTIKULAM.P.O., TALIPARAMBU TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT 3. KUNNOOL SAINABA, D/O. LATE ALIYUMMA, KUNNOOL HOUSE, RAMANTHALI AMSAM, ETTIKULAM DESAM, ETTIKULAM.P.O., TALIPARAMBU TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT 4. KUNNOOL KHADEEJA, D/O. LATE ALIYUMMA, KUNNOOL HOUSE, RAMANTHALI AMSAM, ETTIKULAM DESAM, ETTIKULAM.P.O., TLIPARAMBU TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. PETITIONERS 1 TO E REP. BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER KUNNOOL KADEEJA, D/O.LATE ALIYUMMA KUNNOOL (H),RAMANTHALI AMSOM,ETTIKULAM DESAM -DO- BY ADV. SRI.SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR (LAND ACAUISITION EZHIMALA NAVEL ACADEMY, PAYYANNUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.36382 OF 2009 (P) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioners submit that their properties were acquired for the purpose of Naval Academy, Ezhimala. Award was passed, compensation was paid and reference under Section 18 was not sought. They filed application under Section 28A evidenced by Exts.P1 and P3. Meanwhile they again filed Exts.P4 to P6. That was rejected and Exts.P9, P11 and P13 on the ground that their applications were already rejected. Thereupon the petitioners sought reference under Section 28A(3) by fling Exts.P10, P12 and P14 and those were rejected by Exts.P15,P16 and 17 on the ground that the application made by the petitioners were time barred and the second applications were rejected as the earlier applications were already rejected. It is in this background this writ petition is filed. 2. As repeatedly held by this court, if rejection of the first application was on technical grounds, second application is maintainable from a land owner. If that be so, since the first WPC.No.36382 /09 :2 : application was rejected as time barred, the rejection of Exts.P4 to P6 was illegal. In such a case applicant was entitled to have sought reference under Section 28A(3). Therefore, in my view the claim of the petitioners made by Exts.P10, P12 and P14 ought to have been referred to under Section 28A(3) of the Act. 3. Accordingly, Exts.P15, P16 and 17 are quashed and the petitioners' reference applications Exts.P10, P12 and P14 shall be referred to the Reference Court under Section 28(A)(3) of the Land Acquisition Act. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 8 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. It is clarified that this court has not pronounced on the merits of the case and the contentions raised by both sides are left open. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/