IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2008 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 37832 of 2008(D) ----------------------------------- (LAR NO.318/05 OF SUB COURT, THALASSERY I.A. 1867/08 IN I.A.3381/07 IN LAR 318/05) ...................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- PUTHANPURAYIL NARAYANI, AGED 51 YEARS, W/O. KANNAN, MEETHAL VEEDU, MEETHAL.P.O, MOORIYAD, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN SMT.LISHA.M.G. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), THALASSERY. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, K.S.I.D.C.I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P..C. NO. 37832 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 19th day of December, 2008. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed with a prayer to set aside the orders Exts.P1, P4 and P6 and to direct the Land Acquisition Court to proceed with the reference on merit and in accordance with law. 2. Notice is given to the Government Pleader. Both heard. The Land Acquisition Reference was disposed of on 6.9.2007 as the claimant was absent by answering the reference negatively. Subsequently, it was restored on payment of cost of Rs.250/- each to the Government as well as to the Requisitioning authority. It is seen from Exts.P2 and P3 that the amounts were paid but when the matter was called on 5.6.08 as there was no representation the restoration application was dismissed. Again to restore that application an application was filed and by virtue of Ext.P6 I.A. was dismissed. So in effect the original order answering the reference against the claimant remains and that order was on account of the absence of the claimant. W.P.C. 37832 OF 2008 -:2:- 3. It is a settled position of law that Land Acquisition Reference Court cannot dispose of the matter without application of mind and it has to peruse all the records available even if the claimant is absent. Here, just by giving an order that reference is answered negatively does not mean that there is application of mind. Therefore it requires interference and so the award passed by the Land Acquisition Court in LIR 318/05 is set aside and the Subordinate Judge, Thalassery is directed to restore LIR 318/05 to file and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Land Acquisition Court for further directions on 22.1.2009. The W.P.C. is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-