IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2009 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1931 LA.App..No. 203 of 2006() ------------------------- LAR.354/1998 of ADDL.SUB COURT,N. PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT: ----------------------- MANIYAN MANIYAN, PATHIYALAKKATTU F.A.C.T. QUARTERS PP-48, F.A.C.T. TOWNSHIP. BY ADV. SRI.JAICE JACOB RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. F.A.C.T. LTD., UDYOGAMANDAL REP. BY ITS COMPANY SECRETARY. ADV. SRI.ANTONY DOMINIC FOR R2 SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R2 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BENNY VARGHESE THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... L.A.A.No.203 OF 2006 ............................................. Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Land Acquisition Court, North Paravur in LAR.No.354/1998. It was a petition filed under Section 28 A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition Court dismissed the application on the ground that it is filed beyond time. 2. I feel, a detailed investigation is not contemplated here for the following reasons: The award was pronounced on 24.1.1996. Application under Section 28 A (3) of the Land Acquisition Act was filed on 22.8.1996. As per Section 28 A(1) an application has to be filed within three months from the date of the award of the court on which reliance is placed. It is further stated in the proviso that for computing the period of three months, the Collector shall be made under the subsection the day on which the award was pronounced and the time requested for obtaining the copy of the award shall be included. 3. Admittedly, the application was filed after 6 months : 2 : L.A.A.No.203 OF 2006 and 28 days. So, necessarily there is a delay of 3 months and 28 days. Whether it is an excusable or condonable delay was a matter which should have been proved by the claimant in the case. Nothing is tendered before the authority to establish that time was spent for getting the copy of the award. Therefore apparently there is no explanation tendered to explain the mandate provided under the proviso to Section 28A(1). Therefore, it has to be held that the petition is barred by limitation and no relief can be granted. This is what has been precisely done by the court below. Therefore, the appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 3 : L.A.A.No.203 OF 2006