IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2008 / 13TH POUSHA 1929 OP.No. 5667 of 1999(Y) ---------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SRI.V.N.PADMANABHA GOWDER, S/O.NAGAPPA GOWDER, KOLAMBATTA, PURAKKADI VILLAGE, SULTHAN BATTERY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(L.A.), KARAPUZHA BENSURA SAGAR IRRIGATION PROJECT, KALPETTA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NO.9667/1999 IN O.P. NO.5667/1999 DISMISSED: SD/-(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) 3.1.2008 SD/-(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST PREFERRED BEFORE R2. P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C-389 DT.9.11.98. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. .................................................................... O.P. No.5667 of 1999 .................................................................... Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT C.N.Ramachandran Nair, J. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P2 order issued by the Special Tahsildar (LA) rejecting an application for reference made under Section 18A of the Land Acquisition Act on the ground that compensation amount was received by the petitioner without protest which is the requirement of Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act to maintain an application for reference. Even though issue is covered against the petitioner vide Full Bench decision of this court, it is held by Division Bench of this court in O.P. 16013/1998 that if there is evidence of receiving compensation by making protest orally, an application for reference is maintainable. Even though not specifically pleaded in the O.P., counsel submitted that petitioner has made protest orally at the time of receiving cheque. Besides it is seen that an application for reference itself is filed within six weeks from the date of receipt of the cheque. Obviously protest was there in the mind of the petitioner or otherwise a prompt application for reference would not have been made. The only question is whether the protest was 2 conveyed to the second respondent at the time of receipt of cheque. In view of the judgment of the Division Bench and since others similarly placed like petitioner got additional compensation in cases referred, we feel that one more opportunity should be given to the petitioner to adduce evidence about the protest made by him orally or otherwise. The O.P. is accordingly disposed of directing the second respondent to give an opportunity to produce evidence about the protest conveyed by him orally or otherwise and if any protest was made, second respondent will make reference without any delay. There will be direction to the second respondent to decide the matter afresh after giving opportunity to the petitioner, within two months from now. The petitioner will produce copy of this judgment and evidence like proof affidavit or documents in support of his claim without any delay for compliance by second respondent. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms