IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2011 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 OP(C).NO. 3989 OF 2011(O) --------------------------------------- LAR.28/2010 OF SUB COURT, CHENGANNUR .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- K. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, AGED 76 YEARS, S/O. LATE GOPALA PILLAI, PALLATHU VILLAGE, EDAYARANMULA MURI, ARANMULA VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 532. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION (RAILWAY) KAYAMKULAM - 690 502. 2. SOUTHERN RAILWAY, REPRESENTED BY THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI P.J. DAVIS. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P(C) NO.3989 OF 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUB COURT, CHENGANNUR IN L.A.R. NO.28 OF 2010. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE SUB COURT, CHENGANNUR IN L.A.R. NO.28 OF 2010. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO.362 OF 2011 IN L.A.R. NO.28 OF 2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, CHENGANNUR. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== O.P(C) No.3989 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 07th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T 1. Learned Government Pleader takes notice for the first respondent. Standing Counsel for second respondent also takes notice. 2. This Original Petition is filed seeking a direction to the learned Sub Judge, Chengannur to adjourn L.A.R. No.28 of 2010 listed for trial on 08.12.2011 since according to the petitioner he did not get opportunity to take necessary steps in the matter of completion of pleadings. 3. The matter relates to acquisition of property of petitioner and A claimant for the purpose of second respondent. According to the petitioner, without notifying the property for acquisition, property of petitioner was acquired by the first respondent. That was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition where respondents contended that the old survey number of property of petitioner was included in the Notification though there happened to be some mistake. Petitioner yielded to the fact of O.P(C) No.3989 of 2011 -: 2 :- acquisition and made a request to the Land Acquisition Officer to make a reference to the civil court since petitioner felt that compensation awarded was too low. Reference was refused which was challenged in this Court and as per order of this Court, reference was made to the reference court and the reference court has taken the matter on file as L.A.R. No.28 of 2010. 4. Grievance of petitioner is that since the Land Acquisition Officer had not deposited interest payable on the amount awarded and the building belonging to the petitioner has already been demolished, the details of the same are required to be brought in and hence petitioner filed Ext.P3, application before the learned Sub Judge to raise additional issue. It is submitted by learned counsel that steps in the reference case are not over. While so, Ext.P3, application was posted on 08.11.2011 and on 22.11.2011, the reference case itself is posted on 08.12.2011 for trial in the list. In the circumstances petitioner could not take necessary steps in the matter. Hence the request in this Original Petition to adjourn the case. Learned counsel submitted that since proceedings are to be completed before parties go for trial, it is necessary that trial of the case is adjourned to a convenient day. O.P(C) No.3989 of 2011 -: 3 :- 5. Learned Government Pleader and Standing Counsel for second respondent pointed out that if petitioner got information on 22.11.2011 about inclusion of the reference case in the list on 08.12.2011 it was possible for him to make necessary application before the learned Sub Judge rather than rushing to this Court with a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. In reply it is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that on account of intervening holidays counsel for petitioner got information only on 03.12.2011. 6. I am inclined to think that the request to adjourn the reference case and grant of time ought to have been made before learned Sub Judge. However, since case is coming up for trial on 08.12.2011, I am inclined to grant some relief to the petitioner. Resultantly Original Petition is disposed of directing the learned Sub Judge, Chengannur to adjourn L.A.R. No.28 of 2010 for enquiry to a day after two weeks from 08.12.2011. In the meantime it is open to the petitioner to make necessary application before the learned Sub Judge for further extension of time if required, to dispose of Ext.P3, application and grant time to the petitioner to take necessary pre-trial steps if any. If any such O.P(C) No.3989 of 2011 -: 4 :- application is filed, learned Sub Judge shall pass appropriate orders on that application. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv