SOPHY PAUL Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner seeks a direction requiring the 1st respondent to take action on Ext. P-3 application filed by her under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). According to the petitioner, 1.3 ares of her property comprised in Sy. Nos. 7/1 and 7/2 of Maradu Village was acquired under the Act for the Container Terminal established by the 3rd respondent. Award was passed on 19-10-2000 and compensation was also paid. Subsequently, petitioner filed an application dated 10-3-2007 under Section 28A of the Act for redetermination of the compensation relying on the awards in LAR Nos. 62/2001 and 64/2001. By Ext. P-1 order dated 16-4-2008, 2nd respondent rejected the application and the relevant portion of the order reads thus:

(2.) Thereafter, L.A.A. No. 754/2006 and connected appeals were dismissed by this Court as per Ext. P-2 common judgment dated 5-3-2010. Subsequently on 17-8-2010, petitioner filed Ext. P-3 application dated 3-8-2010, under Section 28A of the Act for re-determination of the compensation awarded. Orders were not passed on Ext. P-3 and therefore this writ petition has been filed. Contention of the petitioner is that the application filed on 10-3-2007 was an invalid application, inasmuch as the same was filed belatedly and therefore Ext. P-3 application filed for re-determination of compensation filed under Section 28A of the Act is liable to be considered on merits.

(3.) The 3rd respondent has filed a counter-affidavit. According to them Section 28A recognizes only one opportunity for re-determination of compensation and that opportunity having been availed of by filing the application leading to Ext. P-1 order, it was impermissible for the petitioner to have filed yet another application vide Ext. P-3. According to the 3rd respondent when the application dated 10-3-2007 filed by the petitioner was rejected by Ext. P-1 order, the petitioner should have taken recourse to Section 28A(3) of the Act. It was also contended that admittedly the application dated 10-3-2007 was filed long after the expiry of the period specified in Section 28A of the Act and therefore its rejection was perfectly legal. On these grounds respondents sought dismissal of the petition.