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. 31768 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- PUTHIYAPURAYIL MADHAVI, D/O. DEVI, AGED 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT RAMANTHALI AMSOM, ERRIKULAM DESOM, P.O. ETTIKULAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND ACQUISITION), NAVAL ACADEMY, PAYYANNUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.31768 OF 2009 (M) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T In this case 0.1130 hectors of land comprised in Rs.No.71/5 of of Ramanthali Village was acquired for the purpose of Naval Academy, Ezhimala. Award was passed, compensation was paid and reference under Section 18 was not sought by the petitioner. Ext.P1 application made by the petitioner for redetermination of the compensation under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act was rejected. Again petitioner made Ext.P2 application, relying on the judgment in LAR.No.213/1987 and that was also rejected by Ext.P3 for the reason that an application was already rejected. Petitioner's application for reference under Section 28A(3) was also rejected by Ext.P5. It is in these circumstances the writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P3 and P5. 2. The first application made by the petitioner was rejected as time barred. If so, the second application is maintainable as held by this court in Muraleedharan Pillai V. State of Kerala (1999(3)KLT 846) and in Madhavi V. Special Tahsildar (2003(1) KLT 813). Consequently Exts.P3 and P45 are illegal and WPC.No. 31768/09 :2 : are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, quashing Exts.P3 and P5, the writ petition is disposed of directing reconsideration of Ext.P2 application. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 8 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. It is clarified that this court has not expressed anything on the merits of the case and the contentions of the petitioner are left open. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/