IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2010 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 8678 of 2010(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- P.V.DAMODARA PODUVAL,S/O.LATE RAMAN NAIR POOLUKUNNATHU VADAKKE VEETTIL KANKOLE POST-670337 KANKOLE VILLAGE, PAYYANNUR KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR SRI.GEEN T.MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(L.A) OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR EZHIMALA NAVAL ACADEMY PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.V.MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).8678/2010 -------------------- Dated this the 16th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT The prayer sought in the writ petition is to quash Exts.P4 and P6. 2. According to the petitioner, his property comprised in R.S.No.372/5 having an extent of 0.3240 hectares in Ramanthali Village was acquired by the respondent for the purpose of Naval Academy, Ezhimala. Though an Award was passed, petitioner did not seek any reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (in short 'the Act'). Subsequently petitioner filed Ext.P1 application under Section 28A of the Act, relying on a judgment in LAR.98/92, claiming enhancement of compensation originally awarded. That application was rejected by Ext.P2 order as time barred. Petitioner filed yet another application as Ext.P3 under Section 28A of the Act relying on the judgment in LAR.6/99 which was also rejected by Ext.P4 on the ground that the first application was already rejected and therefore, the second application made is a duplication. Petitioner pursued W.P.(C).8678/10 2 the matter by filing Ext.P5 under Section 28A(3) that was again rejected by Ext.P6. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed. 3. The fact that in the circumstances Ext.P3 application is maintainable is covered in favour of the petitioner in view of the judgment in Madhavi v. Special Tahsildar (2003 (1) KLT 813). Consequently Exts.P4 and P6 order are unsustainable and are liable to be set aside. 4. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of quashing Exts.P4 and P6 and directing the respondent to reconsider Ext.P3 application and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs