IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 23472 of 2009(D) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ KIZHAKKE PURAYIL KUNHIKANNAN, S/O.KUNHAPPU, KIZHAKKE PURAYIL, KUNHIMANGALAM VILLAGE, EDATT POST-670 327, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR. O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR, MR GEEN T. MATHEW. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), NATIONAL HIGHWAY, KANNUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. V. MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.23472/2009 D APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 25/08/2003 BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A.1853/03 DTD. 23/01/2004 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF THE PETITION UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT TO THE PETITIONER AND THE ORDER THEREON. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.23472 of 2009-D = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 6th day of November, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner states that he submitted Ext.P3 application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. That application is dated 27.3.1989. Going by the endorsement available on the reverse of Ext.P3, as placed on record in terms of what was issued under the RTI Act, that application stood rejected in May, 1989. With these facts, a detailed order was issued at the stage of admission essentially requiring the respondents to show the materials on which this Court could take up that the decision rejecting Ext.P3 was communicated to the petitioner. On the basis of the files which are brought here and the counter affidavit, it is pointed out that the petitioner had issued a notice through a counsel and the decision on Ext.P3 was communicated to that counsel by WPC23472/09 -: 2 :- despatching it from the office of the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner is right in pointing out that in the absence of materials to evidence that the decision on Ext.P3 was communicated or issued by registered post, it may have to be assumed that the communication did not reach the petitioner. But the fact of the matter remains that the petitioner, who had legal advice even at that point of time, did not choose to make any complaint for the last nearly two decades on that issue. The petitioner is not an illiterate person. He signs using Alphabets in English language. With this, the learned counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that in the case in hand, the petitioner could be given an opportunity to have an adjudication through the Reference Court, however excluding the claim for any interest or other add ons which would have been accumulated with the passage of last two decades. Two decades having passed through, it may not be possible to compel the State Government to take out those files and face WPC23472/09 -: 3 :- reference application before the civil court. In larger public interest, I am of the view that the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be exercised in favour of the petitioner. The writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/2811