IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2008 / 15TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 23726 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28/02/2006 IN IA 3336,3358/2005 IN LAR.122/1999 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ OMANA AMMA W/O. LATE THANKAPPAN PILLAI RESIDING AT PANAVILA KIZHAKKATHIL, PERUMPUZHA CHERRY, ELAMPALLOOR VILLAGE KOLLAM TALUK BY ADV. SRI.V.BHASKARAN PILLAI SMT.S.LEELA SRI.B.VINOD SMT.V.JISHA RANI RESPONDENTS: ------------- SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) KALLADA IRRIGATION PPROJECT, NO.11,KOTTIYAM BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BENNY VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).No. 23726 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT On this writ petition coming up for admission, notice was taken by the Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents and I have heard the submissions of Sri.V.Bhaskaran Pillai, learned counsel for the petitioner and also those of Sri.Benny Varghese, learned Government Pleader. The petitioner challenges Ext.P2 judgment of the reference court in a reference under section 28A(3) and also Ext.P6 order passed by the court on interlocutory application filed by the petitioner's husband, the original claimant for setting aside Ext.P2 judgment. A reading of Ext.P2 will show that the learned Subordinate Judge became obliged to pass Ext.P2 since the original claimant Sri.Thankappan Pillai who is the husband of the present petitioner had not adduced any evidence. Ext.P6 reveals that the interlocutory application filed by Thankappan Pillai was found to be not maintainable in law in view of the principles laid down in the judgment of the supreme court in Bai Shakriben (dead)by Natwar Melsingh WPC.No.23726/08 2 and others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and another ( AIR 1996 Supreme Court 3323) and a decision of this court. 2. Sri.V.Bhaskaran Pillai has addressed me extensively on the various grounds raised in the writ petition. Counsel submitted that the petitioner's husband is no more and is survived by the petitioner and their only daughter. The application filed by the petitioner's husband Sri.Thankappan Pillai under section 28A had been favourably considered by the land acquisition officer and compensation had been re-determined on the basis of the judgment relied on in the application. The only mistake which was committed by the land acquisition officer was that he did not award solatium or interest at statutory rates as envisaged by section 34. 3. The learned Government Pleader to a query would submit that the legal position is now settled that awardees under section 28A are also eligible for statutory benefits like interest and solatium. He however would support Ext.P2 and P6 on the reasons contained therein. 4. It appears to me that the petitioner belongs to the lowest WPC.No.23726/08 3 strata of the society and section 28A itself has been enacted by the legislature in the interest of illiterate and inarticulate persons like the petitioner. Since it is trite that the awardee under section 28A is eligible also for statutory benefits like interest and solatium, it is obvious that the land acquisition officer had erred in not awarding interest and solatium. It appears to me that the land acquisition officer was carried away by some executive circular which had been given to him for guidance by the Government. Under the above circumstances, I am of the view that a further opportunity should be given to the petitioner for redressal of her grievance. Accordingly, I dispose of the writ petition directing the reference court to entertain the interlocutory application to be filed by the petitioner and her daughter seeking review of Ext.P2 judgment on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Khazan Singh v. Union of India ( 2002(1) KLT 644(SC) provided such a petition is filed by them within one month from today. If the reference court receives such application, then the application will be entertained and favourably considered notwithstanding Exts.P2 and P6 and appropriate WPC.No.23726/08 4 orders will be passed on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court. Orders as directed above shall be passed at any rate by the reference court within six weeks of the petitioner and daughter filing the application. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No.23726/08 5