IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2008 / 16TH SRAVANA 1930 W.A.No. 1622 of 2008 ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.12519/2007 DATED 01/04/2008 .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ---------------------------------------- 1. FATHIMA BEEVI, D/O. P.M.KUNJO, AGED 58 YEARS, POOCHANAMPARABIL, RIFAJE MANZIL, NOW RESIDING ATKALATHIL, UZHUVAMURIYIL, VAYALAR EAST VILLAGE, REP. BY P/A HOLDER M.K.MOHAMMED RAJA, S/O.P.M.KUNJO, AGED 62 YEARS, POOCHANAMPARAMBIL, RIFAJE MANZIL, NOW RESIDING AT POOCHANAMPARAMBIL, THOPPIL, PIPELINE ROAD, TRIKKAKARA P.O., VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE, KOCHI - 21. 2. M.K.MOHAMMED RAJA, S/O.P.M.KUNJO, AGED 62 YEARS, POOCHANAMPARAMBIL, RIFAJE MANZIL, KUTHIATHODU VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT POOCHANAMPARAMBIL, THOPPIL, PIPELINE ROAD, TRIKKAKARA P.O., VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE, KOCHI - 21. 3. P.K.ABDUL MAREEM, S/O. P.M.KUNJO, AGED 56 YEARS, POOCHANAMPARAMBIL, RIFAJE MANZIL, KUTHIATHODU P.O., KUTHIATHODU VILLAGE, REP.BY.P/A.HOLDER M.K.MOHAMMED RAJA, S/O.P.M.KUNJO, AGED 62 YEARS, POOCHANAMPARAMBIL, RIFAJE MANZIL, NOW RESIDING AT POOCHANAMPARAMBIL T HOPPIL,PIPELINE ROAD, TRIKKAKARA P.O., VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE, KOCHI-21. W.A.NO.1622 OF 2008 - 2 - 4. P.K.MOHAMMED SALI, S/O.P.M.KUNJO AGED 44 YEARS, POOCHANAMPARAMBIL, RIFAJE MANZIL, KUTHIATHODU P.O. KUTHIATHODU VILLAGE, REP.BY.P/A.HOLDER M.K.MOHAMMED RAJA, S/O.P.M.KUNJO, AGED 62 YEARS, POOCHANAMPARAMBIL, RIFAJE MANZIL, NOW RESIDING AT POOCHANAMPARAMBIL, THOPPIL, PIPELINE ROAD, TRIKKAKARA P.O., VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE, KOCHI - 21. 5. SUBAIDA, W/O. LATE P.K.MAJEED, AGED 41 YEARS, POOCHANAMPARAMBIL, RIFAJE MANZIL, KUTHIATHODU P.O., KUTHIATHODU VILLAGE. 6. NISSIYA, D/O.LATE P.K.MAJEED, AGED 21 YEARS, POOCHANAMPARAMBIL, RIFAJE MANZIL, KUTHIATHODU P.O., KUTHIATHODU VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH FRANKLIN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN WPC: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 3. SPECIAL TAHASILDAR, L.A.RAILWAY, CEHRTHALA. 4. L.A.GENERAL, CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA (DELETED FROM PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DT.19-3-2008 IN I.A.NO.3747/2008). BY SR.GOERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------- W.A.No.1622 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 7th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. This writ appeal is directed against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.12519 of 2007 dated 1st April, 2008. 2. In the writ petition, the primary relief that is sought for by the first petitioner is to direct the respondents to consider her application said to have been filed some time in the month of October/November, 1985 for enhancement of the compensation for the land acquired, under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act ('the Act' for short). 3. The learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition primarily on the ground that the application filed by the first petitioner is beyond the time limit prescribed under the Act. However, has granted liberty to the petitioners to make an application, if they so desire, under Section 28A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Single Judge, the petitioners are before us in this writ appeal. 5. In our view, the writ appeal requires to be rejected on two grounds. Firstly, in the writ petition filed in the year 2007, the petitioners W.A.No.1622 of 2008 2 have requested this Court to direct the respondents to consider the application said to have been filed by them some time in the year 1985. Time and again it is stated by the Courts that if a person has slept over his/her rights, is not entitled for the discretionary relief of this Court. 6. Apart from this, the Land Acquisition Act provides a period of limitation within which time frame an application for enhancement of compensation requires to be filed before the acquiring authority. Since the application filed by the first petitioner was beyond the time limit prescribed under the Act, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge was fully justified in rejecting the writ petition on that ground also. 7. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the appellants are not entitled to the reliefs sought for in the writ appeal. Accordingly, the writ appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE vns