IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2008 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 30780 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SUJATHA, D/O. BHANUMATHI, KONNAVILAKATHU VEEDU, KULATHOOR, ATTIPRA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER B.SUMANGALA, D/O BHANUMATHI. 2. V.SARADHA, PULIVILAKATHU VEEDU, KALLINGAL, KULATHOOR, ATTIPRA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.M.HEMALATHA SRI.MAHESH ANANDAKUTTAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANATHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (L.A), COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).No.30780 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Under challenge is Ext.P4 order by which the land acquisition officer rejected Ext.P2 application for reference submitted by the petitioners namely Smt.Sujatha and Smt.Saradha. Ext.P2 is not signed either by Smt.Sujatha or Smt.Saradha. It is signed by one Sumangala who claims to be the power of attorney holder of Smt.Sujatha as well as the authorised representative of Smt.Saradha. Under Ext.P4 which is communicated to Smt.Sumangala, Ext.P2 is rejected and the reason for rejection is mentioned is the invalidity of the power of attorney. Ext.P1 is the power of attorney. 2. I do not know why Ext.P1 is described as an invalid power of attorney. So far as I can see Ext.P1 empowers Smt.Sumangala to apply under Section 18 on behalf of Smt.Sujatha. That being so, Ext.P2 to the extent it is submitted on behalf of Smt.Sujatha should not have been rejected on the ground that power of attorney is invalid. According to me, Ext.P2 has to be treated by the land acquisition WPC.No.30780/08 2 officer as an application for reference submitted on behalf of Smt.Sujatha regarding the award passed in Sujatha's favour in L.A.C.No.283/2000. It is true that the petitioners did not produce any document which will show that Smt. Saradha, the second petitioner has authorised Smt.Sumangala to file Ext.P2 application on her behalf. But I notice that the property was a single holding and was treated as such by the land acquisition officer. There was only one land acquisition case in relation to the above property in which both Smt.Saradha and Smt.Sujatha had been arrayed as interested persons. 3. Under these circumstances, the reference application submitted by Smt.Sujatha through her power of attorney holder Smt.Sumangala could be treated as application submitted on behalf of her co-owner Smt.Saradha also. I therefore quash Ext.P4 and direct the land acquisition officer to take a fresh decision on Ext.P2 application for reference treating the power of attorney relied on by the first petitioner as a valid power of attorney which empowers Smt.Sumangala, the power holder, to apply for reference not only on behalf of Smt.Sujatha but also on behalf of WPC.No.30780/08 3 Smt.Saradha. I make it clear that what has been directed above is only a reconsideration of the application of reference and that since there is no dispute that the application for reference has been submitted on time, the second respondent will have to consider the same favourably. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No.30780/08 4