IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD OCTOBER 2009 / 1ST KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 37751 of 2008(T) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M.T.P.MUHAMMED KUNHI, S/O.N.T.AHAMMED, VANGARA AMSOM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA),EZHIMALA NAVAL ACADEMY, KANNUR. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. V. MANU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/10/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.37751/2008-T: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE AWARD IN L.A.R. NO. 132/87 PASSED BY THE R.2. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 19/07/2008 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.1. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.37751 of 2008-T = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 23rd day of October, 2009. JUDGMENT Relying on an award passed in LAR.132/1987, the petitioner applied for re-determination of compensation under Section 28(A)(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Even going by his own petition, Ext.P2, the application was ordered on 20.12.1999 and the petitioner obtained the cheque dated 20.12.1999. Stating that he received it under protest and that no interest was awarded to him in terms of law, he made Ext.P2 dated 19.7.2008, nearly nine years after that. This writ petition is filed on the strength of Ext.P2 essentially challenging the contents of Ext.P1 which the petitioner knew way back in 1999 when he obtained the cheque. I do not find any ground to extend the visitorial jurisdiction and interfere with the matter even if the plea is WPC37751/2008 -: 2 :- only touching the question of statutory add ons. This is more so because, the petitioner could have availed a remedy under Section 28A(3) which was also not resorted to. The writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/051109