IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2008 / 24TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 30495 of 2008(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.R.SHAJEEL “SHALIMAR” NEW T.C. NO. 62/212 PANAVILA LANE KALLATHUMUKKU MANACAUD P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI.R.MANOJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND ACQUISITION) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.SHYSON.P.MANGUZHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).No. 30495 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT The grievance of the petitioner voiced in this writ petition is that the second respondent-land acquisition officer has not passed favourable orders on Ext.P1 application for reference under section 18 submitted by him. Ext.P2 acknowledgment card will show that Ext.P1 was submitted by the petitioner before the second respondent. According to the learned Government Pleader, Ext.P1 application is per se barred by limitation and is therefore liable to be rejected. But according to the petitioner the starting point of limitation is the date of knowledge and in this case the application has been submitted within the statutory period of the date of knowledge. I do not propose to settle the controversy now. Since Ext.P1 has been received by the land acquisition officer against Ext.P2, I dispose of the writ petition directing the second respondent to hear the petitioner and then take a decision on Ext.P1. This will be done by the second respondent within three weeks of the petitioner producing a WPC.No.30495/08 2 copy of this judgment. Once decision is taken, the petitioner will be informed about the same. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No.30495/08 2