IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2008 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1930 LA.App..No. 1733 of 2007() -------------------------- LAR.498/1998 of ADDL.SUB COURT, N.PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANTS B,C,D,E,F,G ----------------------------------- 1. SUDHAKARAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, KANJIRAKKATTU MANALIL, MANJUMMEL. 2. SUBRAHMANIYAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, KANJIRAKKATTU MANALIL, ELOOR NORTH, ELOOR. 3. SANTHA, W/O.ASOKAN, KARUVELIPARAMBU, THRIKKAKARA. 4. VISWANATHAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, KANJIRAKKATTU MANALIL, MANJUMMEL. 5. DAMAYANTHI, D/O.NARAYANAN, KANJIRAKKATTU MANALIL, MANJUMMEL. 6. MOHANAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, KANJIRAKKATTU MANALIL, MANJUMMEL. BY ADV. SRI.JAICE JACOB SRI.P.M.BENZIR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. FACT LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ELOOR, UDYOGAMANDAL. BY G.P. SMT.LATHA THANKAPPAN ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R.2 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R.2 . SRI.RAJAKANNAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31 /10 /2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,J. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.1733 OF 2007 ------------------------ Dated this the 31st day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Under challenge in this appeal filed by the land owners/ awardees of compensation by the land Acquisition officer is the judgment and decree of the reference court rejecting the reference initiated at their instance under Section 28-A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act on the ground of limitation. 2. I have heard the submissions of Sri. Jaice Jacob, the learned counsel for the appellants, Smt.Latha Thankappan, the learned Government Pleader for the first respondent and Sri.Raja Kannan representing M/s. Menon & Pai for requisitioning authority. 3. The original application under Section 28A was submitted by the appellant on 13/12/1996 relying on the court award dated 24/2/1996. It is not in dispute that the certified copy of that court award was applied for by the appellants on 27/2/1996 and received only on 4/10/1996. Since under Section 28A, the L.A.A..No.1733/2007 2 time taken for obtaining a certified copy of the court award can be excluded from the reckoning of the three year period of limitation for filing applications, it has to be found that the original application filed by the appellants was within time. The land Acquisition Officer rejected the original application vide its order dated 6/1/1998. In fact the rejection order was acknowledged by one Viswanathan an authorised representative of the appellants on the same day. Section 28A(3) provides that the provisions of Sections 18 to 28 shall, so far may be, apply to such reference as they apply to a reference under Section 18 also. It is thus clear that the statutory period for seeking reference under Section 28A (3) is six weeks. But, admittedly application for reference was submitted by the appellants only on 10/10/1998. The learned Subordinate Judge's finding that the reference application was time barred and that finding cannot be said to be erroneous. The situation may be very hard from the point of view of the appellants because the extent of property involved is considerable. The Supreme Court in Tota Ram v. State of U.P. And Others (1997) 6 Supreme Court Cases 280) held that even though Section 28A is a beneficient provision L.A.A..No.1733/2007 3 enacted with the objective of promoting the welfare of illiterate and inarticulate persons, who could not apply for reference under Section 18, such persons have to be extra vigilant while pursuing their remedies under Section 28A. In view of that judgment, the impugned judgment of the Sub Judge is only to be sustained. The appeal will stand dismissed, but in the circumstances without any order as to costs. (PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE) dpk