IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 8TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 25805 of 2009(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- CHUNNAMBI KUNHIKANNAN, S/O.KANNAN, AGED 67 YEARS, SANATHAN SHANTI NIVAS, CHEMBRANAM, P.O.TIMIRI, VIA.CHERUVATHUR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND ACQUISITION) NAVAL ACADEMY, PAYYANNUR. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.25805 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT 1.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 2.The petitioner filed Ext.P1 application invoking Section 28-A(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on the strength of an award passed by the reference court. That was dismissed as time barred. Later, Exts.P3 to P5 applications were made. They were ordered as per Ext.P6, taking the view that the rejection of the earlier application (Ext.P1) on the ground of limitation results in the latter applications being duplications. The petitioner sought to take up the matter to the court under Section 28-A (3). That has also been rejected as per Ext.P8. 3.The duplication of applications is, by itself, no ground to reject an application under Section 28-A(1). Repeated applications by the same party may, some times, be an administrative WPC.25805/09 Page numbers menace. But, every application under Section 28-A(1) has to be decided on the basis of the award of court which is made the basis of that application. Therefore, technically, the party cannot be deprived of the right to file subsequent applications. As the second application is on the basis of a different award, for that reason, this writ petition is entitled to succeed. In the result, the impugned Exts.P6 and P8 are quashed. Ext.P7 will stand struck off. The competent respondent will take up Exts.P3 to P5 and decide on it in accordance with law and issue orders within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.5/10.