IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2008 / 13TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 20184 of 2008(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ MATHEW MOHAN, AGED 58, S/O.JOSEPH, KOLLANUR HOUSE, NEAR GOVT.PRESS QUARTERS SHORNUR, OTTAPPALAM TALUK PALAKKAD BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, SPL.TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION, (GENERAL), NO1 PALAKKAD. 2. THE DISTRIDCT DOLLECTOR, COLECTORATE, PALAKKAD 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).No.20184 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT This court passed Ext.P1 judgment in favour of the petitioner directing the first respondent - Land Acquisition Officer to dispose of the application under Section 28A filed by him on the basis of the documents to be produced by him. The petitioner's grievance is that the land acquisition officer has now issued Ext.P3 directing him to produce succession certificate which will show that he is the legal heir of Dorcasa, who was the original owner of the property. 2. Sri.G.Sreekumar, learned counsel for the petitioner draws my attention to Ext.P2 award notice and submits that, under that notice, the petitioner, his brother and sisters themselves were awardees and therefore the insistence of the land acquisition officer that succession certificate should be produced is not justified. I find some merit in the above submission of Sri.G.Sreekumar. However since Sri.G.Sreekumar ultimately submitted that it will suffice if the land acquisition officer is directed to keep the proceedings under Section WPC.No. 20184/08 2 28A pending till such time as Ext.P4 succession O.P. ( SOP No. 10/08) already filed before the Sub Court, Ottapalam is disposed of and a certificate issued, I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition issuing such directions: The first respondent is directed to keep the proceedings under Section 28A referred to in Ext.P3 as well as in Ext.P1 judgment of this court pending for a period of five months or till such time as the petitioner produces a succession certificate issued to him in SOP .No. 10/08 whichever is earlier. This the first respondent can do notwithstanding the time limit set by Ext.P1 judgment. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No. 20184/08 2