IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2008 / 23RD SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 24741 of 2008(U) -------------------------- LAR.129/2003 of SUB COURT, CHERTHALA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ 1. HARIDHAS, S/O. AYYAN, MADHURAVELIYIL VEEDU, NADUBHAGAM MURIYIL, THYKKATTUSSERY P.O. CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.JOBY CYRIAC RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KERALA STATE REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), GENERAL ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE PROJECT OFFICER, NO. III, OECF PROJECT, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SRI.GOPINATHAN NAIR, S/O. DAMADHARAN NAIR, KANNANTHARAMALIKA, THYKKATTUSSERY P.O. CHERTHALA. BY G.P. SRI.BASANTH BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/ 8 /2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,J. ------------------------ W.P.(C)No. 24741 of 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 14th of August, 2008 JUDGMENT The Registry refused to number the writ petition on the reason that the writ petition is not maintainable since the petitioner has a regular remedy by way of appeal against Ext.P2 judgment of the reference court. 2. Sri.Joby Cyriac, the learned counsel for the petitioner would draw my attention to the judgment of this court in Krishna Pillai v. State of Kerala ( 2007 (2) KLT 588). Sri.Joby Cyriac would submit that the learned Subordinate Judge has committed a patent mistake which will justify invocation of the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Directing the petitioner to have a remedy by way of appeal will cause prejudice to the petitioner since he will have to pay a substantial amount by way of court fee on the prospective appeal. It is true that this court has held in Krishna Pillai's case that if it can be found that a patent mistake has been committed by the sub court, that mistake can be corrected by WPC.No.24741/2008 2 this court under Article 226 without insisting on the party filing a regular appeal against the order of the court. It is also true that the cost which would be involved in filing regular appeal was also one of the considerations for taking that view. But, on going through Ext.P1, I find that the crux question whether the petitioner had received the original compensation, which was awarded to him by the Land Acqusition Officer with protest, so as to enable him to maintain a reference under Section 18 of the Act has been correctly decided by the court below. The court below enquired into that question and decided that question on the basis of the materials which were available before the court and the evidence adduced by the parties including the petitioner's own testimony as AW-1. The court below has pointed out that AW1 did not have a case in his testimony that he received original compensation with protest. 3. Having considered the judgment of the court below and the materials which were available before the court below, I feel that it is unlikely that the petitioner would have received the original compensation with protest. Ext.P1 reference application, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, is one WPC.No.24741/2008 3 material which will indicate that the petitioner has received the original compenstion with protest. Ext.P1 is filed two weeks after the original compensation was paid to the petitioner. The petitioner's entitlement for receiving the original compenstion itself was in doubt and it was by an order passed by the Taluk Legal Service Committee that the petitioner could receive his compenstion. Probabilities, according to me, are that the petitioner received the original compensation happily on the basis of the order of the Taluk Legal Service Committee. At any rate, I do not find any infirmity or mistake on Ext.P1 warranting invocation of the constitutional jurisdiction rather than the regular appellate jurisdiction of this court. Even otherwise, I feel that the petitioner does not have to worry. There must have been other reference cases relating to the acqusition under the very same Section 4 (1) notification. The petitioner can always apply under Section 28A and get relief. The writ petition will stand dismissed. (PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE) dpk WPC.No.24741/2008 4