IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2008 / 19TH POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 1391 of 2003() -------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09/01/2003 IN IA. 748 /2002 IN LAR.74/1997 of SUB COURT, MANJERI .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER: ----------------------------- PUNNATHADEN SAFIYA, D/O. BEERAN, KALLEKKUNNU, P.O. KALIKAVU, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT: ------------------------ THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.R.BINDU THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/01/2008, ALONG WITH CRP. NO.1394/2003 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== C.R.P. Nos.1391 & 1394 OF 2003 ===================== Dated this the 9th day of January 2008 O R D E R These revision petitions are preferred against the order of the Land Acquisition Court, Manjeri in I.A.Nos.748 & 747 of 2002. A perusal of the revision petitions would reveal that the Land Acquisition Court on account of the default of the petitioner closed the case, confirming the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The grievance of the petitioner is that she was bed ridden and unable to move and therefore she could not attend the court which has resulted in confirmation of the award. It is true that the confirmation of an award is not a dismissal for default. But, nevertheless the net result is that there is no interference with the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The Apex Court as well as this Court had held in very many cases that it is an imperative duty of the court to apply its mind to the facts of the case and consider whether any interference is necessary with the reference. But, in this case that has not been done. Further, it is submitted that as she was laid up she could not attend the court. So, interest of justice demands that an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to CRPs 1391 & 1394/2003 -:2:- contest her case on merits. Therefore, both the revision petitions are allowed and the Land Acquisition Court is directed to restore L.A.R.No.74 of 1997 back to file and dispose of the matter after affording equal opportunity to the claimant as well as to the State. The Land Acquisition Court is also granted liberty to consider the question of interest being granted after the period of answering the reference till restoration today and if it is of the view that there has been total negligence on the part of the claimant, it can exercise its jurisdiction to refuse interest. Even on that point, the claimant should be heard and permitted to give her own explanation. Being an old matter, a direction is given to the court below to dispose of the matter within 3 months from the date of first appearance of the parties. I fix the first appearance of the parties as 11.2.2008. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-