PARAMESWARAN PILLAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS before us were writ petitioners before learned Single Judge. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 02.11.2009. In brief the facts that lead to the filing of this writ appeal are as under.

(2.) APPARENTLY , the land of petitioners was acquired by Government way back in 1992. After passing of award, they sought reference under Land Acquisition Act which came to be rejected on the ground of limitation. Though the land acquisition officer referred the matter to reference court, reference court dismissed the reference opining that it was barred by limitation. Aggrieved by the same, writ petition was filed and the same came to be rejected as per Ext.P2 wherein it was opined that the judgment of reference court and judgment of learned Single Judge declining interference with the judgment will not stand in the way of petitioners applying for redetermination of the compensation under Section 28A on the basis of any relevant court award. Subsequently, an application under Section 28A came to be made by petitioners,which came to be rejected by the authority concerned. Aggrieved by the same, they filed W.P.(C) No. 36817 of 2008 which came to be dismissed by judgment dated 02.11.2009 confirming the opinion of District Court, therefore, appellants are before us.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the same, appellants are before us contending that the application filed under Section 18 being rejected on the question of limitation, virtually has to be considered as no application being filed under Section 18 of the Act. Therefore, there was no adjudication of application under Section 18 on merits. Hence, they are entitled to make an application under Section 28A of the Act. The second contention is that though period of three months is indicated to file application under Section 28A from the date of last award, i.e. 31.07.2004, as he was prosecuting application filed under Section 18 and intending to take it to its logical end, the time spent for such prosecution deserves to be excluded and the fact that after excluding such period, the period of three months would not be over, therefore, the application filed on 03.10.2008 deserves to be entertained and cannot be rejected.