IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2010 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 19566 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SREEJA.T.K., W/O. V.K.DINESHAN, 'VIVD', CHOVVA-NADAL BYE-PASS ROAD, THAZHE CHOVVA.P.O. KANNUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL V.MOHAMMED RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) LAND ACQUISITION OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION THALASSERY, KANNUR DIST. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.V.MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.19566/09 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 20.3.98 SUBMITTED AGAINST THE NOTICE U/S.9(3) OF THE LA ACT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REFERENCE APPLICATION DT 9.9.99 SUBMITTED AGAINST THE NOTICE U/S.12(2) OF THE LA ACT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.12.2006 IN OP NO.35576/02. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DT 25.2.2003 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DT.22.5.2009 RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO AN APPLICATION UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DT 16.6.2009 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DT.22.6.09 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 19566 OF 2009 (M) ===================== Dated this the 25th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The prayer sought in the writ petition is to direct the respondents to refer the claim for enhancement of compensation sought for by the petitioner by Ext.P2 to the Court for consideration under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. According to the petitioner, Ext.P2 application was filed on 9/9/1999 and that much later only , she realised that the matter was not referred. It is stated that on her enquiry, she came to know that the files are misplaced, and it is therefore that reference was not made. 2. However, learned Government Pleader on instruction submits that Ext.P2 application was not received by the respondents and it was therefore that reference was not made. 3. Once the Government disputes receipt of application, unless the petitioner is able to prove that reference application was filed before the concerned officer, this Court will not be justified in directing that reference shall be made. Petitioner has WPC No. 19566/09 :2 : no material to prove that she had filed Ext.P2. In such a case, this Court cannot direct reference on the basis of Ext.P2. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp