IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2010 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 6783 of 2010(W) -------------------------------------- (LAR.NO.39/2004 OF SUB COURT,NEYYATTINKARA) .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- B.LALITHA BAI, T.C.24/136, SHASTHAG- GARDEN, THENKKADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.R.MANOJ, SMT.SINDHU MANOJ, SMT.SUSAN MATHEW, SRI.N.S.RAVINDRANATHAN. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.K. RAVIKRISHNAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- WP(C) No.6783 of 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated 8th April 2010 Judgment In this Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the prayer made by the petitioner is to take back LAR No.39/04 on file and dispose of the same in accordance with law. 2. Two acres of land situated in Survey No.149/10 of Vizhinjam village along with buildings and trees thereon, were acquired by the State for the construction of Kovalam-Neyyattinkara-Byepass Road, for which compensation was awarded. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the petitioner moved a reference as LAR No.39/04 before the Sub Court, Neyyattinkara, which was posted to 24.05.2006. Since the petitioner was not well, he could not appear before the Court on the said date. Consequently, the reference was dismissed and the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer was confirmed. A copy of the WPC 6783/10 2 order so passed is produced as Ext.P2. Immediately, the petitioner filed a restoration application, namely, IA No.792 of 2006. Unfortunately, there was a delay of 50 days in filing the said IA. Therefore, the Court below directed the petitioner to pay Rs.500/- as costS to the respective Legal Services Authority. It was so paid and obviously, the petitioner thought, the restoration application would be allowed. But, to his dismay, the IA filed by him for restoration was dismissed on the ground that the judgment is confirming the award. Ext.P4 is the copy of the said order. Aggrieved by Ext.P4, the petitioner has come up in Writ Petition before this Court. 3. Obviously, the orders passed by the Court below are incorrect. After having condoned the delay in filing the IA for restoration and after having received the payment made by the petitioner towards costs for the delay from his part, the application filed by him for restoration ought to have been allowed, treating the dismissal of LAR as one for default. The petitioner has submitted WPC 6783/10 3 that there was no wilful laches or negligence on his part in not appearing before Court. There is no reason to disbelieve him. In the result, this Petition is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside and LAR No.39/04 of the Sub Court, Neyyattinkara is restored to file. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta WPC 6783/10 4