IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2010 / 16TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3225 of 2009(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MUNDIYADI DASAN, S/O.CHEKKUTTY, EAST HILL PO., KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETAIRAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE 3. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LA), KOZHIKODE. MR.V.MANU, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) No.3225/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF COMMON JUDGMENT IN LAR 420/99 OF SUBORDINATE JUDGE, KOZHIKODE. P2 : COPY OF APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 16/07/2002. P3 : COPY OF COMMUNICATION SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 19/08/2008. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.3225 of 2009 (H) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 6th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P3, an order passed by the 3rd respondent rejecting an application made by the petitioner under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 2. A reading of Ext.P3 shows that the reason stated for rejection was that the application made by the petitioner was belated. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in LAR No.416/99 and connected cases, Ext.P1 judgment was rendered on 28/11/2001. According to the petitioner, copy of Ext.P1 judgment was applied on 01/01/2002. Though copy was ready on 27/04/2002, the date notified for appearance to issue copy was 25/05/2002. It is stated that he received the copy on 20/05/2002 and Ext.P2 application under Section 28A was made on 16/07/2002. It is stated that going by the above, the application has been made within three months as provided in Section 28A(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. WP(C) No.3225/2009 -2- 3. However, from the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader, what emerges is that the respondents reckoned the time from the date when the copy was ready, namely 27/04/2002, and it is on that basis, the application made by the petitioner was held to be belated. It is clearly erroneous. If as stated by the petitioner, the date notified for appearance to receive the copy was 25/05/2002 and he received copy on 20/05/2002 and made application under Section 28A as submitted by him, the question as to whether the application was made within the time or not is to be assessed counting the period from 20/05/2002 and not from 27/4/2002. Since the approach of the 3rd respondent as reflected in Ext.P3 is clearly erroneous, this writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P3 and directing the 2nd respondent to reconsider Ext.P2 application made by the petitioner, in the light of the observations made as above. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg