IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2008 / 13TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 22480 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ P.V. SUDHAKARAN, AGED 45, S/O. LATE P.P. KUNHIRAMAN, PUTHIYAKANDOM, P.O. CHERUVATHUR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 2. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), NAVAL ACADEMY, PAYYANNUR. BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).No.22480 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges Ext.P5 which is a communication sent to him by the second respondent land acquisition officer with reference to Ext.P4. Ext.P4 was a reminder to Ext.P3 dated 16-4-1998. According to the petitioner Ext.P3 was an application for reference under Section 28A(3) since the petitioner was aggrieved by the award passed by the land acquisition officer in the application under section 28A which the petitioner had filed. In Ext.P5, it is stated that the petitioner's reference application Ext.P4 had been rejected and communication had been sent to the petitioner on 20/7/1998. Heard Sri.V.N.Ramesan Nambisan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Basant Balaji, the learned senior Government Pleader. Sri.V.N.Ramesan would submit that though it is stated in Ext.P5 that the order rejecting the reference application was communicated to the petitioner by post, the petitioner is yet to receive any such communication. He submitted further that he has been WPC.No.22480/08 2 informed by the staff of the second respondent that the only reason on which Ext.P3 was rejected is that a wrong provision ( section 18) has been quoted therein instead of the correct provision which is section 28A(3). Whatever that be, I am of the view that the petitioner should be given a copy of the decision taken by the second respondent on the reference application submitted by the petitioner on 16/4/1998 which according to the petitioner has not been received by him at all. Accordingly, I dispose of the writ petition issuing the following directions; The second respondent is directed notwithstanding anything stated in Ext.P5 to communicate to the petitioner the decision taken by the second respondent on Exts.P3 and P4 to the petitioner by registered post acknowledgment due within three weeks of receiving copy of this judgment. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No.22480/08 2