IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2010 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 21334 of 2009(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KURUNGAN KUNHIKANNAN, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O. CHIRUKANDAN, RAMANTHAI, P.O. VADAKKUMBAD, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), NAVAL ACADEMY, PAYYANNUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 21334 of 2009 APPENDIX EXHBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 26.12.89 UNDER SECTION 28a OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT RELYING ON JUDGMENT IN LAR 200/87 EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER D.DIS 507/05/C DTED 4.12.08 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT REJECTING THE EXHIBIT P1 APPLICATION EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.3.08 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE INTIMATION RECEIVED EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 17.12.08 FILED UNDER SECTION 28A(3) OF THE ACT. EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.REF.D.DIS/2074/08/D DATED 25.5.08 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT REJECTING EXHIBIT P4. (TRUE COPY) P.A TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).21334/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 16th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT The challenge in the writ petition is against Exts.P2 and P5. According to the petitioner, an extent of 0.4960 hectare comprised in R.S.336/1 of Ramanthali Village was acquired by the respondents and compensation was awarded. Based on the enhancement of compensation awarded by the Sub Court, Payyannur in L.A.R.200/87, petitioner submitted an application to the respondents under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act for redetermination of the compensation. That was rejected by Ext.P2 order, stating that certified copy of the judgment of the reference Court relied on, was not produced. Petitioner pursued the matter in an application under Section 28A(3) and that was also rejected by Ext.P5 order stating the very same reason. It is in these circumstances the writ petition is filed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment in Sahid v. District Collector (1997 (1) KLT 461) and W.P.(C).21334/10 2 Balakrishnan v. Special Tahsildar (2006 (3) KLT 1000), wherein it has been held by this Court that if the application made is otherwise valid, the same cannot be rejected for non production of the certified copy of the judgment relied on. 3. In Exts.P2 and P5 the only reason stated for rejection of the application made by the petitioner is non production of the certified copy of the judgment. In view of the aforesaid judgments, it is only appropriate that these orders shall be quashed and I do so. 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider Ext.P1 application made by the petitioner under Section 28A of the Act and pass orders in accordance with law. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs