JOSE SANTY Vs. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in the writ petition has approached this Court challenging Ext.P8 order of the 1st respondent whereby the 1st respondent intimated him that his application for reference in terms of Section 18 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'LA Act', for short) could not be acted upon in view of the fact that it had been preferred beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Section. The facts would disclose that an extent of 16.85 cents of land in Survey No.1030/4- A-4 of Kothamangalam village in Kothamangalam Taluk was acquired from the petitioner under the LA Act for the purposes of construction of Thankalam-Kozhippilly new Bye-pass road crossing NH 49. The petitioner was served with a notice under Rule 11(2) of the Land Acquisition (Kerala Rules), 1990, as per Section 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, requiring him to give a statement showing the nature of interest in the land and the particulars of the claim for compensation and of the objections, if any, as to the measurement under Section 18 of the LA Act. In the claim statement filed by the petitioner before the 1st respondent, the petitioner raised objections and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.6 Lakhs per cent. The acquisition proceedings were proceeded with by invoking the special powers under Section 17 of the LA Act and the petitioner was informed that 80% of the compensation proposed to be awarded was sanctioned as per Section 17(3A) (a) of the LA Act. The 1st respondent eventually passed an award on 30.12.2013 fixing the compensation at Rs.15,66,094/-. Thereafter, a notice under Section 12(2) dated 06.01.2014 was sent to the petitioner which the petitioner received only on 21.02.2014. It is the case of the petitioner that the payment of compensation was not effected till 24.03.2014 and hence his reference application under section 18 was made only on 19.04.2014, after receiving the payment of compensation under protest. It is this reference application, that he preferred on 19.04.2014, that was rejected by Ext.P8 order of the 1st respondent as being time barred.

(2.) I have heard Sri.Philip Mathew, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.

(3.) On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I find that the sole issue to be decided in this case is with regard to the period of limitation that would apply for the purposes of preferring a reference application in terms of Section 18(2) of the LA Act. Section 18 (2) reads as under.: