IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2008 / 25TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 21073 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. SHIJU, S/O SHYMALA DEVI, 34 YEARS, CHENJERI PUTHEN VEEDU, PADINJATTINKARA, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT PUTHENMADATHIL VEEDU, PERINGAZHA KARA, H.M.T. COLONY, KALAMASSERY, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT , PIN 683 503. 2. SHIBU, S/O SHYMALA DEVI, AGED 30 YEARS CHENJERI PUTHEN VEEDU, PADINJATTINKARA, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT PUTHENMADATHIL VEEDU, PERINGAZHA KARA,H.M.T, COLONY, KALAMASSERY, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, 3. SHYMALA DEVI, D/O SARALA DEVI, AGED 60, CHENJERI PUTHEN VEEDU, PADINJATTINKARA, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT PUTHENMADATHIL VEEDU, PERINGAZHA KARA,H.M.T, COLONY, KALAMASSERY, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, BY ADV. SRI.T.K.KURIKESU RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KERALA STATE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) NO.2, KOLLAM. (NOW THE OFFICE IS SHIFTED TO KALLADA IRRIGATION PROJECT COMPOUND, KOTTIYAM). BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.21073 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 16th July, 2008 JUDGMENT Even though Mr.T.K.Kurikesu, learned counsel for the petitioners addressed me very strenuously and persuasively and I have considerable sympathy for the petitioners who are compelled to be content with the not so adequate compensation that was awarded by the land acquisition officer for their acquired properties, I do not find any way to grant relief to them. Mr.Kurikesu submitted that it is the first principle of law that appeal is a continuation of proceedings and that when the appellate court passes a judgment, the judgment of the trial court merges with that of the appellate court and it is the judgment of the appellate court which operates. Applying that principle, the period of limitation for the application under Section 28A will have to be reckoned with from the date of passage of the appellate decree. Attractiveness of the above submission notwithstanding, it is difficult to accept the same since the issue is covered by several decisions. The Supreme Court in Bhagti v. State of Haryana (AIR 1997 SC 1793) has ruled that the maintainability of an application under Section 28A with reference to question of limitation is to be decided with reference to the date of the reference W.P.C.No.21073/08 - 2 - court judgment and not the judgment of the court of appeal. Of course, as submitted by Mr.Kurikesu, the Supreme Court has observed in that case that when it is brought to the notice of the land acquisition officer that an appeal has been filed to the High Court against the judgment relied on in the application, the land acquisition officer is bound to wait till the appeal is disposed of. The Supreme Court in Jose Antonio Cruz Dos R.Rodriguese v. Land Acquisition Collector [(1996) 6 SCC 746) also reiterates the proposition that the cause of action for filing an application under Section 28A arises to the applicant when the reference court passes its award under Section 28 and the applicant is bound to file the application within three months of that date. The Writ Petition will stand dismissed. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE