IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2008 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 25767 of 2006(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.KUNHIPATHUMMA, AGED 67 YEARS, W/O.KUNJIKOYA, EDACHERRY VEEDU, H.NO.V/345, P.O.MANNUR, KOZHIKODE- 673328. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM SMT.KOCHUMOL KODUVATH RESPONDENTS: ------------- REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KOZHIKODE. BY SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.25767/2006 APENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS; EXT.P1; COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 21.1.2004 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE COLLECTOR. EXT.P2; COPY OF THE ORDER NUMBER K.DIS 59/04/B2 DATED 17.6.2005 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 25767 of 2006 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of June , 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges Ext.P2 order passed by the Land Acquisition Officer rejecting the application filed by her under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act for redetermination of the compensation payable for her acquired properties on the basis of the decisions reported in Union of India v. Hansoli Devi (2003 (1) KLT Short Notes 31) and in Muraleedharan Pillai v. State of Kerala (1999 (3) KLT 846) . The reason stated in Ext.P2 is that the petitioner had filed application under Section 18 of the Act for referring the question of determination of the correct compensation to a competent civil court and that application stands already rejected. In other words, the view taken in Ext.P2 seems to be that application under Section 28A will not be maintainable if the party has already made an unsuccessful application under Section 18 of the Act. The issue, in my opinion, is covered in favour of the petitioner. In order that an application under Section 28A is not maintainable, there should have been a valid reference under Section 18 of the Act. It has been found by this court in Union of India v. Hansoli Devi (2003 (1) KLT WPC No.25767/2006 2 Short Notes 31) and in Muraleedharan Pillai v. State of Kerala (1999 (3) KLT 846) that reference application under Section 18, which is rejected on the ground of time bar or any other technical reason, cannot be construed as a valid reference application for the purpose of Section 28A. The result is that Ext.P2 is quashed and the respondent is directed to restore Ext.P1 and to dispose of the same in accordance with law on the basis of the court judgments relied on. Thereupon final disposal of Ext.P1 as directed above shall be made by the respondent at the earliest and at any rate within three months of receiving a copy of this judgment. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE dpk