ABDUL RASHEED Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to quash Ext.P3 order by which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act has been rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer-3rd respondent on the ground of limitation. The petitioner filed Ext.P2 application relying on the judgment in L.A.R.No.85 of 1994 of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Mavelikkara which pertained to another property covered by the Section 4(1) notification under which the petitioner's property was also acquired. The Subordinate Judge's Court, Mavelikkara pronounced the judgment in L.A.R. No. 85 of 1994 on 12.4.2002, the day on which that Court was closed for midsummer vacation. The Mavelikkara Sub Court was having midsummer vacation by virtue of a notification issued by the High Court under Section 19 of the Civil Courts Act till 25.5.2002. The petitioner applied for certified copy of the judgment in L.A.R. No. 85 of 1994 on 25.5.2002 itself and did not waste time in the matter of the copy application after the same was filed. He filed Ext.P2 application within three months of obtaining the copy. However, the Land Acquisition Officer passed Ext.P3 rejecting Ext.P2 on the ground of limitation. A reading of Ext.P3 will show that the Land Acquisition Officer has excluded from the period of limitation only the day on which the judgment in L.A.R. No. 85 of 1994 was delivered and not the days when the Sub Court remained closed for midsummer vacation.

(2.) I heard Sri. George Varghese Perumpallikuttiyil, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri. Aloysius Thomas, Senior Government Pleader.

(3.) Sri. George Varghese submitted that both under the Limitation Act as well as under Section 28A(i) of the Land Acquisition Act, the petitioner was entitled to exclusion of the date 12.4.2002 as well as the time taken for obtainment of a certified copy of the judgment in L.A.R. No. 85 of 1994 and since the Subordinate Judge's Court remained closed for vacation from 13.4.2002 till 25.5.2002, it could have been possible for the petitioner to apply for copy only on 25.5.2002, the reopening date when the application was actually made by him. Thus, according to the learned counsel, Ext.P2 application filed admittedly within 87 days of the obtainment of certified copy was perfectly on time and was not liable to be rejected.