IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 7TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 25382 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- CHERIKUNIYAN GOVINDAN, S/O. LATE CHERUKINIYAN VITHAL PARATHIKKAD, RAMANTHALI VILLAGE, PALACODE POST-670305. THALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR SRI.GEEN T.MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KANNUR DIST. 2. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A) OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR EZHIMALA NAVAL ACADEMY PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DIST. BY GP I V PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 25382 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner submitted Ext.P1 application dated 28.5.1998 under Section 28A(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. going by Ext.P6, postal acknowledgment card, that application, was despatched by the petitioner on 2.6.1998 and delivered to the concerned officer on 3.6.1998. 2. Taking the view that the application was received only on 12.6.1998, Ext.P2 was issued, rejecting the reference on ground that the application was time barred and was filed 181 days after the due date though the period fixed is three months in terms of the proviso to Section 28A(1). 3. In connection with this writ petition, apart from the question of limitation, the learned Government Pleader also pointed out that the application under Section 28A(1) is filed on the basis of award dated 3.9.1979 in LAR 120 of 1987 of the Sub Court, Payyannur, which is a revised award issued after an order of remit by this court in LAA 220 of 1992. Wpc 25382/2009 2 4. But, leaving aside the question whether a reference application under Section 28A(1) could have been footed on the strength of a revised award, the ground reality remains that even if I take it that the application for reference was received in the office of the Collector on 3.6.1998, matters would not improve. I say this on the basis of the facts pleaded in the writ petition also. The award of Court, relied on by the petitioner was passed on 3.9.1997. He applied for the certified copy of that award on 29.11.1997. Certified copy was ready on 28.5.1998. He obtained that copy on that day itself. This means that the period from 29.11.1997 to 28.5.1998 could be excluded. Even if I exclude both those days also, the application for reference ought to have been filed on or before 1.6.1998. At any rate, the application filed on 3.6.1998 was clearly time barred. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/30/9