SPECIAL TAHSILDAR KOZHIKODE Vs. P KARTHIYANI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A learned Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent and quashed Ex. P4 passed by the first appellant, the Special Tahsildar, rejecting the application of the respondent for reference under S.20 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act on the ground that the petition was barred. The Special Tahsildar and the Collector, the appellants, question the correctness of the said decision.

(2.) The Special Tahsildar, after the award was passed, issued Ext. P1, a notice under S.12(2) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act; and since the application for reference was not filed within six weeks of the said notice as contemplated by S.20(2)(b), first part, the application was rejected. The question for us to consider is whether the said decision of the Special Tahsildar was correct.

(3.) Two or three decisions have been brought to our notice. The first decision is Manavallabhan Karnamulpad v. State of Kerala ( 1965 KLJ 670 ) by a learned Judge of this Court. The second and third decisions are by the Supreme Court, the first in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer ( AIR 1961 SC 1500 ) and the other in State of Punjab v. Mst. Caisar Jehan Begum ( AIR 1963 SC 1604 ). In the first of these decisions, the Single Judge of this Court was considering S.12(2) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act; and since the relevant notice served on the landlord, who was the person interested, did not mention that fact, the learned Judge held that S.12(2) was not complied with. In the second decision cited, the Supreme Court was considering S.12(2) of the Indian Land Acquisition Act, which provision is the same as S.12(2) of the Kerala Act: and in considering the second part of S.18(2)(b), which corresponds to S.20(2)(b) of the Kerala Act, the Supreme Court held that the six months mentioned there should be six months from the date of knowledge, actual or constructive, by the person interested and not six months, mechanically, from the date of the award irrespective of knowledge. And in the third decision, the Supreme Court was considering again the Indian Land Acquisition Act: and the Supreme Court referred to their earlier decision in Harish Chandra's case and observed: