IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2010 / 14TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 14242 of 2009(A) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ KOKKADAN BHASKARAN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANAN, KOKKADAN HOUSE, KOVAPURAM, CHERUKUNNU AMSOM, KANNUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 2. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) EZHIMALA NAVAL ACADEMY, PAYYANNUR. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.14242/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN LAR 213/87. P2:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SEC. 281 OF THE ACT. P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 12.3.09. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.14242 of 2009-A - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of August, 2010. JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the rejection of an application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act. The order has been produced as Ext.P3. 2. The properties of the petitioner of an extent of 0.0279 hectares in R.S.No.283/3 & 0.6880 hectares in R.S.No.283/4 in Ramanthali Village were acquired for the purpose of the Naval Academy. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is dated 22.2.1983, the award is dated 26.3.1984 and the possession was taken on 11.4.1984. The petitioner received the compensation amount under protest. 3. In L.A.R. No.213/1987 the reference court enhanced the compensation for the nearby property and accordingly, the petitoenr filed an application under Section 28A of the Act, as per Ext.P2. Ext.P1 is the copy of the judgment in L.A.R. No.213/1987. 4. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the reasons stated in Ext.P3 cannot be supported. The application is rejected as time barred on the reason that the judgment in L.A.R. No.213/1987 was wpc 14242/2009 2 originally pronounced on 31.1.1990 and the petitioner filed by the application after a revised judgment was passed pursuant to the judgment in L.A.A. No.52/1992. It is also mentioned that no land is acquired from R.S. No.283/3. 5. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit supporting the reasons stated in Ext.P3. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that going by Section 28A of the Act, what is mentioned is the right of party to file an application based on any award. It is pointed out that the award in L.A.R. No.213/1987 is really Ext.P1 and not the award which was set aside by this Court in the L.A.A. No.52/1992. It is therefore pointed out that the application is within time. Evidently, the award in L.A.R. No.213/1987 was set aside by this Court in LAA No.52/1992 and the matter was remanded to the reference court. For all intend and purposes the award Ext.P1 is the one governing L.A.R. No.213/1987. The earlier award dated 31.1.1990 is no longer in existence. Therefore, evidently as the said award is not having any legal existence the respondents cannot reckon the date 31.1.1990 as the date of award for the purpose of considering the period of limitation of Ext.P2 application. A non-existent award cannot therefore be countenanced for the purpose of Section 28A of the Act. wpc 14242/2009 3 7. The above said legal position is clear from the decisions of this Court in Joseph v. District Collector (2004 (2) KLT 1029) and in Annamma Thomas v. State of Kerala (2010 (1) KLT 623). 8. In Annamma Thomas' s case (2010 (1) KLT 623), it was held that “notwithstanding the fact that an order of remit has been made by an Appellate Court in exercise of the authority under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, the consequential adjudication by the reference court and the resultant award that would be passed after remit by the Appellate Court is nothing but an award under Part III of the Act. So much so, an award passed by reference court following an appellate order of remit, is an award sufficient to sustain an application under Section 28A(1) of the Act.” 9. In Joseph's case (2004 (2) KLT 1029), it was held that the award of the Court under Section 28A of the Act can include an award made by the court in a case registered under Section 28(A)(3). Even though the question is not identical, it is clear that any award passed by the Land Acquisition Court can be relied upon by the parties concerned for sustaining an application under Section 28A of the Act. Therefore, the same will include an award passed by the reference court after remand. In that view of the matter, Ext.P3 is quashed. The application cannot wpc 14242/2009 4 be rejected as barred by limitation. There will be a direction to the respondents to reconsider Ext.P2 in terms of the provisions of Section 28A of the Act and on its merits, after hearing the petitioner and take an appropriate decision within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/