IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2010 / 14TH SRAVANA 1932 LA.App..No. 690 of 2004() ------------------------- LAR.1/1992 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANTS: --------------------------------------------- 1. AHAMMED KUTTY, ARYAD PARAMBIL, VATTAYAL WARD, ALAPPUZHA. 2. SABILA, D/O. AHAMMED KUTTY, ARYAD PARAMBIL, VATTAYAL WARD, ALAPPUZHA. 3. SIMILA, D/O. AHAMMED KUTTY, ARYAD PARAMBIL, VATTAYAL WARD, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADVS. SMT.C.G.BINDU, SMT.C.G.AJITHA. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) RAILWAYS, ALAPPUZHA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. ========================= L.A.A.No.690 OF 2004 ====================== Dated this the 5th day of August, 2010. JUDGMENT The claimants in L.A.R. No.1 of 1992 of the Principal Sub Court, Alappuzha are the appellants. The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.8.1994 of the said court. The claimants adduced oral and documentary evidence. 2. Award in the case was passed on 17.4.1989. The learned Judge held that the reference is time barred and therefore the reference is not maintainable. On the basis of the finding that the reference is time barred, the prayer for enhancement of compensation was disallowed by the court below. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition for condonation of delay, claimant Nos.2 and 3, the appellants, deposed that they are the unmarried daughters aged 27 and 28 years, that their father has been conducting the case, that they were minors at the time when the case was decided by the reference court and that after the second marriage of their father there was nobody to look after their affairs. They have no information regarding conduct of the case and their father had never informed them about the reference case. L.A.A.No.690 OF 2004 2 4. The learned counsel for the appellant brought to notice of this Court the judgment dated 15.7.2002 in Sarojini V. State of Kerala in L.A.A No.959 of 1999, this Court held that the question as to whether there was a proper application or not, is a matter to be decided by the District Collector and not by the reference court. When once the District Collector recorded satisfaction of the same, the matter has to be referred to the court below, then that reference has to be answered by the court below. When once matter the matter is referred it should end in disposal on merits on the available evidence. 5. The reference application is dated 29.6.1989 and it was held that the application is time barred and therefore, the reference is not maintainable. Following the decision quoted above, the reference court ought to have decided the matter on merits. This court held that it is for the District Collector to consider such question as to whether there was a proper application or not and not by the reference court. The court below shall decide the reference on merits. In the result, appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the court below is set aside. The court below is directed to dispose of the reference afresh in accordance with law. There L.A.A.No.690 OF 2004 3 was a delay of 3009 days in filing the appeal and the same was condoned by the order dated 4.8.2010. It is made clear that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of interest under Section 28 for the period from 1.12.1994 to 7.4.2004. The parties shall appear before the reference court on 3rd September, 2010. In view of the circumstances narrated in the preceding paragraphs, claimants shall be given an opportunity to amend the pleadings and to adduce further evidence, if so advised. The court below shall dispose of the reference within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No order as costs. HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE. mns