IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 27TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 5TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 17286 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.REMANI, AMBATTUVILA VEEDU, CHERIKKONAM, THRIKKOVILVATTOM, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, L.A. K.I.P.KOLLAM, KUNDARA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C)No.17286/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 8.8.2007 IN W.P(C)NO.16871/2007 EXT.P2. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER TO APPEAR FOR ENQUIRY DATED 19.11.2005. EXT.P3. TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION GIVEN BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 6.2.2010. EXT.P4. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 29.7.2008 REJECTING THE 28(A) CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R3(a): TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION RECEIVED FROM THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR TO THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR. EXT.R3(b): TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT CLOSING THE CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE. / TRUE COPY / P.S.TO JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.17286 of 2010 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner owned a parcel of land which was acquired by the Government for the Kallada Irrigation Project. The award was passed in the year 1987 and possession was taken on 9.6.1987. The petitioner did not move an appropriate application seeking enhancement of the compensation within the time limit prescribed in the Land Acquisition Act. The owner of the adjoining parcel of land moved the Land Acquisition Officer claiming enhancement of compensation in time and that dispute was referred to the Additional Sub Court, Kollam where it was taken on file and numbered as L.A.R.No.332 of 1989. By judgment delivered on 30.11.1998 the Additional Sub Court, Kollam, enhanced the compensation. The petitioner thereafter applied for and obtained a certified copy of the judgment and submitted an application under section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act before the District Collector, Kollam. By Ext.P4 memo dated 29-7-2008 the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Kollam, informed the petitioner that W.P(C).No.17286 of 2010 -:2:- the said application has been rejected as time barred for the reason that it was filed beyond 90 days. 2. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court the learned Government Pleader made available to me the files leading to Ext.P4. It discloses that the petitioner's application under section 28A was submitted to the District Collector only on 9.6.1999. Along with that application, the petitioner had produced a certified copy of the judgment of the reference court in L.A.R.No.332 of 1989. The judgment in that case was delivered on 30.11.1998. Going by the stipulations in section 28A, the petitioner should have filed the application within 90 days from the date of the award passed by the reference court. She could have got the time requisite to obtain a certified copy of the judgment excluded while computing the period of limitation. The files disclose that the petitioner applied for a certified copy of the judgment only on 17.2.1999, that is, 78 days after the judgment in L.A.R.No.332 of 1989 was delivered by the reference court. As per the endorsements on the certified copy, the certified copy was made ready on 22.5.1999 and 26.5.1999 was fixed as the date for appearance to receive the copy. The petitioner however took delivery of the copy only on 28.5.1999. Going by the endorsements in the certified copy, the petitioner ought to have submitted the W.P(C).No.17286 of 2010 -:3:- application under section 28A on 7.6.1999. The petitioner however, submitted the original of the application under section 28A only on 9- 6-1999. In such circumstances the rejection of the petitioner's application under section 28A for the reason that it was filed beyond the period of limitation cannot be said to be illegal. I therefore, find no grounds to interfere with Ext.P4. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.17286 of 2010 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 27th September, 2010