IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2008 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 10544 of 2006(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ ALICE, W/O. ALOSIOUS, ANJILIKATU HOUSE, ELOOR SOUTH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.J.KURIACHAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) GENERAL, ERNAKULAM. ADDL. RESPONDENT: FACT, UDYOGAMANDAL DIVISION, UDYOGAMANDAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R2 AS PER ORDER DATED 6-10-2006 IN WP(C). R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. LATHA THANKAPPAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX:- EXT.P1TRUE COPY OF AWARD NO. 42/1995 DT. 13-12-1995. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REFERENCE APPLICATION DATED 10-1-1996 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF REFERENCE LETTER DT. 3-5-1997 SUBMITTED BY THE AWARDING OFFICER BEFORE THE SUB COURT N. PARAVOOR. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN LAR. NO.401/97 DT. 29-2-2000 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE IN LAR. NO. 401/97 DT. 29-2-2000 EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 31-01-1998 IN LAR NO. 16/97 BY THE ADDL. SUB JUDGE NORTH PARAVOOR. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 30-6-2000 IN LAR NO.86/97 OF ADDL. SUB JUDGE, NORTH PARAVOOR. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 10544 OF 2006 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of May, 2008 J U D G M E N T In this writ petition, the petitioner who was the claimant in L.A.R. 401 of 1997 challenges Ext.P4 judgment and P5 decree in that case on varius grounds. LAR. No. 401 of 1997 was a reference under section 18 for determination of the correct compensation payable for the petitioner's acquired propeprty, the correct total extent of which was 2.20 ares. Ext.P1 is the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. As per that award, land value for 1.80 ares have been awarded in favour of the appellant while in respect of .40 ares there is no such award and the amount is ordered to be deposited under section 31(2) on the reason that the petitioner had not estsablished clear title to that portion of the propeprty. Case of the petitioner is that on receiving notice from the Land Acquisition Reference Court the information gathered was that the case pertains to the petitioner's claim for receiving compensation for the aforementioned .40 ares. It had never occurred to the petitioner and the case pertains to her claim for enhancement of land value based on the request made for reference under section 18. 2. I have heard Sri.K.J.Kuriachan, learned counsel for the WP(C)N0.10544/06 -2- petitioner at some length. Mr.Kuriachan would draw my attention to the very first sentence in paragraph 2 of Ext.P4 judgment and submit that the reference has been answered by the learned Subordinate Judge as if the same pertains to determination of the correct value for 7.20 ares of land. The correct extent acquired from the petitioner's possession was 2.20 ares and not 7.20 ares. I am not impressed by the above submission. Obviously the above wrong extent of 7.20 ares is mentioned by mistake. Another submission made by Mr.Kuriachan was that the requisitioning authority who has been impleaded in this writ petition as additional second respondent were not parties either before the Land Acquisition Officer or before the Reference Court. Though the requisitioning authority has been impleaded in this court that authority has not voiced any grievance against Ext.P4. The nonimpleadment of the requisitioning authority before the court below has not resulted in any prejudice to the petitioner. Lastly the learned counsel would draw my attention to the judgment of a learned single Judge of this court in Krishna Pillai v. State of Kerala, 2007(2) KLT 588 and submit that the court fee involved in the matter of filing of regular appeal can be a justification for invocation of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227. Counsel incidentally submitted that since the extent shown in Ext.P4 is 7.20 the petitioner may become obliged to value the appeal on that basis and become liable to pay a WP(C)N0.10544/06 -3- substantial amount by way of court fee. I am not impressed by the above submission either. It is true that this court has held that in an appropriate case the consideration of reducing the litigational costs can be a reason for invoking the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227. But I do not think that the instant one is a case where invocation of supervisory jurisdiction will be justified. Reference court registered the case on the basis of Ext.P3 reference letter. Though section 31(2) is also quoted in that letter it is seen that the request is to determine the correct compensation payable under section 18. Petitioner will have to impugn Exts.P4 and P5 by preferring appeal before this court. The appeal can be suitably valued by the petitioner so that he does not have to overvalue the appeal and the appeal will be onfined to claim for 2.20 ares. I am sure that this court will be inclined to exclude the time during which this writ petition was pending before this court from the reckoning for the purpose of limitation while considering the application seeking condonation of delay caused in the matter of filing appeal. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) ksv/-