IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2010 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 31769 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- THEKKEPURAYIL KUMARAN, S/O. KOTTAN, AGED 72 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHEMRAKANAM, P.O. TIMIRI, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDA4R (LAND ACQUISITION), NAVAL ACADEMY, PAYYANNUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.31769 OF 2009 (M) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that 0.5980 hectors of land comprised in RS.No. 411/2 of Ramanthali Village was acquired for the purpose of Naval Academy, Eahimala. Award was passed, compensation was paid and reference under Section 18 was not sought by the petitioner. 2. Later relying on the judgment in LAR.No.98/92, petitioner submitted Ext.P1 application for redetermination of the compensation under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act. That was rejected as time barred by Ext.P2 order. Again relying on the judgment in LAR.No.213/87, petitioner submitted Ext.P3 application. That was rejected by Ext.P4 on the ground that previous application was already rejected. His application for reference under Section 28A(3) also was rejected by Ext.P6 for the same reason. It is in these circumstances the writ petition is filed praying for quashing Exts.P4 and P6. 3. Since the first application made by the petitioner, WPC.No. 31769/09 :2 : namely Ext.P1, was rejected on the ground of time bar and not on merits, second application was maintainable. It has been so held by this court in Muraleedharan Pillai V. State of Kerala (1999(3)KLT 846) and in Madhavi V. Special Tahsildar (2003(1) KLT 813). In view of this rejection of Ext.P3 application by Ext.P4 order and Ext.P6 is to be set aside and I do so. Writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to reconsider Ext.P3 application of the petitioner and pass fresh orders in accordance with law. This shall be done within 8 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any thing on the merits of the case and the contentions of the petitioner are left open. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/