IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2008 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 30596 of 2005(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ J.HARIKRISHNAN NAIR, 'PADMAVILASOM', PEECHOTTUKONAM, VENGANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SPECIAL TAHASILDAR L.A(G.L) KOVALAM - VIZHINJAM, FISHING HARBOUR PROJECT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY G.P. SMT. LATHA THANKAPPAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.30596/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS; EXT.P1; COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.5587/2005. EXT.P2; COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 30596 of 2005 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of June , 2008 JUDGMENT Under challenge in this writ petition is Ext.P2 order of the Land Acquisition Officer rejecting the application under Section 28A of the Act filed by the petitioner for re-determination of the correct compensation payable for his acquired properties. The reason stated in Ext.P2 for rejecting the application under Section 28A is delay. Sri.Poovappally M.Ramachandran Nair the learned counsel for the petitioner has addressed me very strenuously and persuasively on the authority of the judgment of the Full Bench in Krishnan Kutty v. The Special Tahsildar (2003 (3) KLT 705 (F.B.) . The ratio dissidendi of the Full Bench Judgment is that the question whether the applicant under Section 28 A had received the compensation determined by the Awarding Officer with or without protest is totally irrelevant in the context of maintainance and disposal of application under Section 28A of the Act. The Full Bench judgment has nothing to do with the question whether the time barred applications under Section 28A can be entertained or disposed of by the Land Acquisition WPC No. 30596/2005 2 Officer. In the last paragraph of the Full Bench Judgment, the Full Bench has expressed concern about the inordinate delay which is being caused by the Land Acquisition officers in the matter of disposing of applications for reference under Section 18 and application for determination of compensation under Section 28A of the Act. This court has noticed that on account of such delay, the Government is loosing heavily on account of interest at the statutory rates mentioned in Section 34 of the Act. This court has directed forwarding a copy of the judgment to the Chief Secretary, so that necessary follow up action will be taken. 3. I am not inclined to accept the submission of Sri. Ramachandran Nair that in a situation where the authorities under the Land Acquisition Act are causing inordinate delay resulting in incurring of very heavy loss by the Government on account of interest under Section 34 of the Act, small extents of delay caused by the parties in the matter of filing under section 28A should be condoned. I am unable to accept the above submissions since it is settled by the judicial authority including those by the Supreme Court that thought Section 28A is beneficent provision intended for the benefit of those illiterate and inarticulate persons who omit to make application under Section 18 of the Act within the time, the statutory provisions of WPC No. 30596/2005 3 limitation are to be construed strictly in their case also. The writ petition will stand dismissed. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE dpk