KATHIR PAREED Vs. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A reference application made to the Subordinate judge's Court, Parur under S. 20 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961, (Act 21 of 1962) was dismissed by Ext. P7 order on the ground that the plaintiffs-claimants had not made any specific claim before the Land acquisition Officer; and therefore their claim was rejected under S. 27 (2) of the act. This writ petition is to quash the said order.

(2.) THIS was referred to a Division Bench by our learned brother Isaac, J. as he felt a doubt about the correctness of an earlier ruling of our learned brother Eradi J. in O. P. No. 779 of 1967 in which the learned judge set aside a similar judgment of the civil court. Isaac J. felt that the obvious remedy of the petitioner against the impugned judgment is to file an appeal therefrom. He felt some difficulty in following the judgment of our learned brother Eradi J, and therefore, made this reference to a Division bench.

(3.) WE proceed to consider the merits of the petition. By our order dated 2nd August 1973, we called for the records from the Sub Court, and also directed the learned Government Pleader to produce the files and the records to show the relevant dates of the notification and declaration issued under S. 3, and 6, and the notices issued under S. 9 and 10 of the Act. The records are now before us. From an examination of the same, it is seen that the s. 6 Declaration was published in the Gazette dated 2-4-1963; the individual notice under S. 9 is dated 12-6-1963, and it was published in the gazette dated 2-7-1963. Both these called upon the parties concerned including the petitioners, to be present with their objections and claims, if any, for enquiry on 30tb of July 1963. On that date, Ext. P1 statement was filed by the petitioners The award is dated 18-3-1965. It is beyond dispute that Ext. P1 statement does not make any specific claim to compensation. Therefore, if Ext. P1 alone were to be regarded as a claim made by the petitioner in answer to the notice under S. 9 of the Act, the order of the court below (Ext. P7), rejecting the reference) is proper and does not disclose any grounds for interference.