IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2010 / 24TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 31879 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PUTHIYAPURAYIL KUNHIKRISHNAN, S/O. DEVI, AGED 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT MOTTAKUNNU, P.O.ETTIKULAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND ACQUISITION) NAVAL ACADEMY, PAYYANNUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 31879 of 2009 ----------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF JUNE, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the rejection of the claim made under section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act for redetermination of compensation. Exhibit P1 is the copy of the application which was initially submitted by the petitioner . That was rejected by Exhibit P2 stating that it was belated and thereafter a further application was submitted by the petitioner as per Exhibit P3. This was rejected by Exhibit P4 stating that the applicant has already filed an application for the same purpose and therefore it is a duplicaition. Again the petitioner filed Exhibit P5 seeking for a reference under section 28(3) of the Act, which stands rejected by Exhibit P6. These orders are under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. Exhibit P1 application was filed relying upon the judgment in L.A.R.No.120/87 of the Sub Court, Payyannur. In Exhibit P3 application, the petitioner is relying upon the judgment W.P.(C)No.31879/09 -2- in L.A.R.No.48/04 of the Sub Court, Payyannur. Therefore actually there is no duplication as shown in Exhibit P4 reply. 4. In that view of the matter what is required is a consideration of Exhibit P3 application on its merits. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Exhibit P3 application may be directed to be considered. 5. The reasons stated in Exhibits P4 and P6 that there is duplication cannot be supported and they are accordingly quashed. There will be a direction to the respondents to consider Exhibit P3 application in accordance with the provisions and communicate the decision to the petitioner expeditiously. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. dsn