ABDUL KHADER Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An extent of 0.7463 Hectare of land in Survey No. 86/2 of Kadappuram Village in Chavakkad Taluk was acquired for the purpose of rehabilitation of Tsunami victims pursuant to the notification under S.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') dated 10/11/2008. After complying with all the mandatory procedures for acquiring the land under the Act, the land was acquired from the petitioner. Later, the Land Acquisition officer passed an award on 28/03/1999 fixing the compensation as Rs.23,02,646/-. The award amount was later, deposited before the Court under S.31(2) of the Act owing to the failure on the part of the owners to produce documents to prove exclusive title over the property. Subsequently, as per Ext. P5 judgment in LAR 52/2009 the petitioner was found entitled to the aforesaid amount deposited in Court. The petitioner is also having a case that earlier, he submitted an application for reference under S.18 of the Act and it was rejected on the ground of being barred by limitation. The petitioner was intimated that he could wait till the passing an award and then make an application subject to the provisions under S.28A of the Act. Though, such an award was passed in respect of properties, belonging to some other persons acquired under the same notification, on applications, in accordance with law, the petitioner had not filed such an application under S.28A within the time stipulated thereunder before the competent authority adhering to the provisions under S.28A. At the same time, the petitioner filed Ext. P7 application before the District Legal Services Authority, Thrissur. That application was subsequently considered and rejected as per Ext. P8. It is essentially challenging Ext. P8 that this writ petition has been filed.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader.

(3.) Indisputably, the application filed by the petitioner, earlier, seeking a reference under S.18 of the Act was rejected on the ground of being belated and he was then intimated that he could prefer appropriate application, in accordance with the provisions under S.28A at the appropriate time. This is discernible from Ext. P8. Even then, the petitioner had not filed any application in tune with the provisions under S.28A of the Act within the stipulated time, before the competent authority. This petition is also not disputed by the petitioner. The petitioner has only filed Ext. P7 petition dated 15/11/2011 that too, before the District Legal Services Authority, Thrissur. In the meanwhile, the compensation awarded earlier deposited in Court under S.31(2) of the Act was withdrawn by the petitioner pursuant to Ext. P5 judgment in LAR 52/2009. Now, the questions to be decided is whether Ext. P7 could be treated as a valid application under S.28A of the Act for re - determination of the amount of compensation and whether the challenge against Ext. P8 is sustainable