IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2009 / 11TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17589 of 2009(P) ------------------------------------- LAR.219/1991 of SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA ........................................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- MUHAMMED KUNJU TAHA, KADAMPASSERIL PUTHEN VEEDU, NANGYARKULANGARA MURI, CHINGOLI VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL SMT.ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION LTD., REP..BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, N.T.P.C. LTD., KAYAMKULAM. ADV. SRI. B.S.KRISHNAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SC FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.17589 of 2009-P = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT 1.A piece of land belonging to the petitioner was acquired for the purpose of NTPC project. Way back in 1991, dissatisfied by the award by the Collector, the matter was referred to the Sub Court, Mavelikara and was numbered as LAR.219/1991. The petitioner, who was abroad, participated in those proceedings through his power of attorney holder. Ultimately, in spite of repeated postings, no material was placed to show that the land value determined by the Collector was not just and reasonable. The matter was listed for trial. Yet, nothing came out. The learned counsel for the petitioner then mentioned in Court that the matter could be closed without prejudice to the petitioner's right to seek relief under Section 28A(1) of the Land WP(C)17589/09 -: 2 :- Acquisition Act on the basis of any subsequent award that may be passed. Essentially, the counsel for the petitioner was trying to save a situation rather than invite an award by Court holding that what has been awarded by the Collector is just and reasonable. Yet, the Court looked into the materials and sought that no material is forthcoming to enhance the compensation. Accordingly, the reference was answered. 2.With the aid of a medical certificate issued in 2005 stating that the power attorney holder of the petitioner had been sick some time in 2005, a delay application was filed seeking that the matter may be re-heard. That also found its waterloo, on 12.4.2006. This writ petition is instituted on 23.6.2009 contending that notwithstanding all the aforesaid which have become final, the award of the court is nonest in as much as it does not amount to a decision answering a reference under Section 18. WP(C)17589/09 -: 3 :- 3.The writ petition abundantly discloses the hard labour of the counsel engaged by the writ petitioner. He has tried to make out all possible legal contentions and has very ably argued before me that the award of the court could be considered as a nonest one. But, having considered the materials on record, it does not appear to be so. Not only that, the petitioner or his power of attorney holder did not adduce any evidence before the Reference Court. The plea for enhancement of compensation no more survived the request that the matter may be closed without prejudice to any proceeding under Section 28A of the LA Act. Also, this Court cannot shut its eyes to the fact that more than three years ago, the petitioner's request to resurrect the proceedings by recourse to Order 9 Rule 9 was also not fruitful. In these circumstances, all that is required is to ensure that this Court exercises its jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution only to correct a manifest miscarriage of justice when it relates to a proceedings in an inferior Court or WP(C)17589/09 -: 4 :- Tribunal. With this view in mind, the aforesaid facts abundantly disclose that inexcusable laches and lapses and inordinate delay in seeking relief stare at the petitioner. But, adverting to Ext.P3 award, it needs to be stated that notwithstanding the statement therein that from the materials placed, it is seen that the proper market value is paid, the Court had not refused the request on behalf of the petitioner to close the proceedings without prejudice to an application under Section 28A(1). Therefore, this writ petition is closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move an application under Section 28A(1). If the cause of action for that is available, such application shall be decided, including on the question of maintainability. Such questions are left open by this judgment. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/070709