IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2008 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 16625 of 2006(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. B.USHA, W/O.JAYARAJ, USHA BHAVAN, THURUVIKKAL P.O. CHERUVAKKAL VILLAGE, PULAYANARKOTTA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. P.JAYAKUMAR, S/O.THE LATE PRABHAKARAN, JAYA NIVAS,THURUVIKKAL P.O. CHERUVAKKAL VILLAGE, PULAYANARKOTTA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.M.PREM SMT.K.P.SANTHI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION (L.A), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANTH BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.C.NO.16625 OF 2006 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 5-10-02 OF THE PETITIONER. /True Copy/ PA to Judge PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).No.16625 OF 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT The grievance of the petitioners who were among the legal heirs of one Prabhakaran is that their request under Ext.P1 for “referring the question of payment of enhanced compensation for their acquired properties” has not been accepted by the second respondent-Land Acquisition Officer. Going by the avermnets in the writ petition, the request of the petitioners is that relying on the judgment in L.A.R.No.240/94 enhanced compensation be paid to the petitioners also. It would thus appear as though the petitioners claim is under Section 28 A. When one reads through Ext.P1 it can be seen that Ext.P1 is not an application under Section 28 A. But it is an application for reference under Section 18. It is admitted by the petitioners in Ext.P1 that there was a reference under Section 18 as well as Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the acquired properties which originally belonged to Sri.Prabhakaran, petitioners' father and in that reference application upon the demise of WPC.No.16625/06 2 Sri.Prabhakaran, petitioners and others were impleaded as additional claimants being the legal heirs of late Sri.Prabhakaran. It is also clear that the reference was answered by the court awarding enhanced compensation to all the legal heirs of late Sri.Prabhakaran except the petitioners. In my opinion, the remedy of the petitioners is to prefer an appeal against the judgment and decree in L.A.R. 240/94. Nevertheless since the Government Pleader has not been instructed by the respondent regarding the pendency of Ext.P1, I dispose of the writ petition issuing the following directions: If Ext.P1 is pending with the second respondent even now the second respondent will take up Ext.P1, consider the same in accordance with law and take a decision. Decision as directed above will be taken and communicated to the petitioners at the earliest and at any rate within three months of receiving copy of this judgment. If the petitioners are desirous of a hearing opportunity, it is open to them to make request in that regard before the second respondent in which case the same will be granted. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No.16625/06 2