CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was the absolute owner in possession of 5 cents of land comprised in Survey No. 1748/4 -2 of Kowdiar Village in Thiruvananthapuram Taluk. Out of the said extent, an extent of 00.26 Ares was acquired for the purpose of widening the Pattom -Kowdiar road. Admittedly, such acquisition was effected after resorting to the prescribed procedures under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act'). Ext. P1 award was passed in respect of the property acquired from the petitioner under S. 11 of the Act. Admittedly, the petitioner has not sought for a reference under S. 18 of the Act. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted Ext. P5 application under S. 28A of the Act seeking re -determination of the amount of compensation based on the award in L.A.R. No. 25 of 2008 and connected cases dated 15.6.2011 in respect of properties covered by the same notification. Along with Ext. P5 application dated 30.1.2012 the petitioner has produced a photocopy of the judgment in L.A.R. No. 25 of 2008 and connected cases dated 15.6.2011. Later, the petitioner was required to produce the certified copy of the said award of the reference court. The case of the petitioner is that the certified copy of the award viz., the common judgment in L.A.R. No. 25 of 2008 and connected cases obtained by him on 23.11.2011 was found missing and thereupon he submitted a fresh application dated 23.9.2013. On 11.10.2013 a certified copy was obtained and thereupon along with the affidavit it was produced before the first respondent on 15.10.2013. That application was ultimately rejected by the second respondent as per Ext. P12 dated 4.1.2014. It is aggrieved by Ext. P12 order that this Writ Petition has been filed seeking its quashment and for a declaration that the application under S. 28A of the Act submitted by the petitioner is bound to be decided on merits in the light of the common award of Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram in L.A.R. No. 25 of 2008 and connected cases. The further prayer of the petitioner is for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext. P5 application filed by the petitioner under S. 28A of the Act, on merits. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader.

(2.) RELYING on the decision of this Court in Sahid v. District Collector ( : 1997 (1) KLT 461) the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that merely because certified copy of the award relied on for seeking re -determination of compensation under S. 28A was not produced along with the application, that application for redetermination could not be dismissed. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the said position. In the contextual situation the decision in Balakrishnan v. Special Tahsildar (2006 (3) KLT 1000) assumes relevance wherein this Court held that the production of certified copy of the award of the reference court, applied for and obtained on an application by or on behalf of the applicant under S. 28A(1) is relevant only in a case where exclusion of time is sought for relying on the proviso to S. 28A(1) of the Act. It was also held that an application which was filed within the time prescribed under S. 28A could not be rejected on the ground that it was unaccompanied by certified copy of award, applied for and obtained by or on behalf of the person invoking S. 28A of the Act. A perusal of the provisions under S. 28A of the Act would reveal that an application under S. 28A ought to be filed within three months from the date of award which is sought to be relied on as the basis of the claim for re -determination and for computing the said period of three months the period from the date of pronouncement of the award and the requisite time for obtaining the award alone could be excluded. Section 28A(1) reads thus: - -