IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2011 / 21ST ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 21860 of 2011(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- A.ABDUL SALAM, PADIPPURA VEEDU, KURAKKODU, PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE, MANGALAPAURA, THONNAKKAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ MR.A.MOHAMED BASHEER (MANGALAPURAM) RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A) AND S.P.V.L.NO.III, CIVIL STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.BIJU MEENATTOOR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 21860 of 2011(F) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON 14.10.2009 BEFORE THE RESPONDENT FOR REFERENCE UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT. EXT.P2: INTIMATION REJECTING EXT.P1 APPLICATION SENT BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: RECEIPT IN FORM NO.D SIGNED ON 29.9.2009 BY THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL ... // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.21860 Of 2011 ---------------------- Dated this the 13th day of October, 2011. J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P2 communication and for a direction commanding the respondents to issue fresh orders on Ext.P1 treating the same as filed within the statutory period provided under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. The petitioner claims that he was the owner and was in enjoyment of 25.60 Ares of land with building in R.S.No.394/5 in Pallippuram Village. The aforesaid property was acquired by the State for the purpose of 4th Phase Development of 'Techno Park'. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 28.5.2009. The petitioner submits that he was not present at the time of passing the award since he has not received any notice. On coming to know about the passing of the award, the petitioner met the Land Acquisition Officer on 29.9.2009 and received the award amount under protest. The petitioner submitted an application for reference on 14.10.2009. Ext.P2 is the ::2:: W.P.(C).No.21860 Of 2011 communication issued to the petitioner stating that his application submitted on 14.10.2009 is belated and therefore, his application for reference to the civil court is rejected. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent it is contended that since the application for reference was submitted after the lapse of 17 days, the Land Acquisition Officer rejected the application in lines with the stipulations contained n subsection 2 (b) of Section 18 of the Act. 4. Since the disputed facts require verification, this Court directed the learned Government Pleader to produce the records in the Land Acquisition Case. Accordingly, the records were produced. On verification of the records, it was found that the endorsement made in the notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was that the notice was served on 17.8.2009. In fact, the notice itself is dated 17.8.2009 directing the petitioner to appear on 22.8.2009. It is not explained to this Court how the notice dated 17.8.2009 was served on the same day. In the above circumstances, there is every reason to believe the case of the petitioner that Section 12(2) notice was not served on the ::3:: W.P.(C).No.21860 Of 2011 petitioner. This Court had verified the signature of the petitioner in Section 12(2) notice with the signature contained in the application for reference and the other signatures in the pleadings in the case. On a perusal of the signatures would show that the signature in Section 12(2) notice and the signature in the other records are entirely different. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioner came to know of the passing of the award only on 29.9.2009 and that the petitioner was not present when the award was made. The application for reference filed by the petitioner is within time. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Ext.P2 communication is quashed. There will be a direction to the respondents to refer the petitioner's case to the civil court for adjudication of his claim for enhanced compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The writ petition is disposed of as above. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-