IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2009 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 36830 of 2009(W) -------------------------- LAR.24/2003 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ATTINGAL .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUBHASH CHANDRAN, KUKKURUVILAKATHU VEEDU,SUJANA NIVAS, KADAKKAVOOR, TIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY HIS WIFE AND POER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, JESSY - -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SMT.M.HEMALATHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, CONSTRUCTION (SR), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY GP V MANU R2 BY N.B. SUNIL NATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.36830 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF DECEMBER, 2009 JUDGMENT The learned Government Pleader appears for the first respondent. Advocate N.B.Sunil Nath takes notice for second respondent. 2. The lands involved in these writ petitions were acquired for the purpose of widening of the stretch available for the southern railway for doubling of Kollam- Thiruvananthapuram Railway line. The claim for compensation was referred to the court for adjudication. Reference Court took up the matter for trial on 31.1.2008. Ext.P1 judgment was issued holding that the reference is answered negatively for want of evidence. This was done after recording that the claimant is absent and no evidence is adduced. Essentially it is an award passed in default. Obviously Wpc 36830/09 2 therefore, applying the ratio of the decisions of this court in Shahida Beevi V. State of Kerala(2008(1) KLT 206), the court below could have been approached by applying to restore the reference even by condoning the delay. Such applications filed by the petitioner has been dismissed as belated. It is true that the application was dismissed on the ground of delay. But the fact of the matter remains that the reason attributable for the absence and the failure to apply for restoration of time was that the Advocate had not informed the petitioner who is represented by his wife as power of attorney holder. The Land Acquisition Reference, being a matter relatable to the quantification of compensation due on account of acquisition of land for a public purpose, I deem it appropriate that the court below gives the petitioner a further opportunity. Wpc 36830/09 3 Accordingly, it is ordered that Ext.P4 order and Ext.P1 award dated 31.1.2008 in LAR 23 of 2003 will stand set aside and the court below will proceed to hear the matter afresh. This will however be on condition that the petitioner will not be entitled to any interest for the period from 1.2.2008 to 31.12.2009 for any enhanced compensation that may be granted by the court below. The parties are directed to appear before the court below on 5th January, 2010. This judgment shall also form part of the award, the court below may pass following this judgment. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/22/12