IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2008 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 5451 of 2005(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.LEELAMMA, PATHINALIL HOUSE, THAKAZHY P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR SMT.BHAVANA.V. RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR (L.A), RAILWAYS, KAYAMKULAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANTH BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.C.NO.5451 of 2005 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30-6-1997 EXT.P2 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE LAND ACQUISITION (RAILWAY) SPECIAL TAHASILDAR DATED 16-1-99 EXT.P3 COPY OF THE APPLICATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE LAND ACQUISITION (RAILWAY) SPECIAL TAHASILDAR DATED 22-2-02 EXT.P4 COPY OF THE APPLICATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER DATED 3-5-04 /True Copy/ PA to Judge PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).No.5451 OF 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is remaining defective on the reason that no process was remitted by the petitioner though notice was ordered on 16/02/2005. The petitioner challenges Ext.P2. Ext.P2 is the order passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on Ext.P1 application submitted by the petitioner. The prayer in Ext.P1 is two fold. Firstly, refer the question of determination of correct compensation payable for the petitioner's acquired property to the court under Section 18. Secondly, re-determine the compensation under Section 28A on the basis of the judgment in L.A.R. No.206/89. In the writ petition also, the same prayers are made in the alternative. Heard both sides. Ext.P2 will show that the petitioner's request for re-determination of the compensation under Section 28A cannot be entertained since the same was filed out of time. According to me, the Land Acquisition Officer cannot be blamed for having construed Ext.P1 as an application under Section 28A since that is the main WPC.No.5451/05 2 prayer in Ext.P1. But the learned counsel for the petitioner would assert that within the statutory period, the petitioner had filed an application under Section 18 before the Land Acquisition Officer seeking a reference to the court. The petitioner's version is highly improbable. However, in view of the assertion of the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the records in the office of the Land Acquisition Officer is verified, it will be seen that the petitioner had actually submitted a reference application under Section 18 within the statutory period, I dispose of the writ petition issuing the following directions: Challenge against Ext.P2 is repelled. The Land Acquisition Officer will verify the relevant registers in his office regarding the reference applications received there and if it is seen that any application under Section 18 submitted by the petitioner is pending, the Land Acquisition Officer will consider that application in accordance with law, take a decision and communicate the same to the petitioner. Needful as directed above shall be done by the second respondent within three months of receiving copy of this judgment. If the WPC.No.5451/05 3 verification reveals that no application under Section 18 has been received in the office of the second respondent, then also the second respondent will inform the petitioner accordingly. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No.5451/05 4