K. SASI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are husband and wife. Their property was acquired and award was passed. Dissatisfied with the award, the petitioners preferred Ext.P3 application under Sec. 64(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for reference to courts, with an application to condone the delay which is produced as Ext.P4. However, Exts. P3 and P4 were dismissed as per Ext.P9 order by the 3rd respondent stating that reason for delay has not been satisfactorily explained. This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P9 order.

(2.) I have heard Sri. Syamnath, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Vidya Kuriakose, the learned Government Pleader.

(3.) The reason offered for the delay was that the petitioners were hospitalised and hence they could not prefer Ext.P3 in time. Ext.P7 medical certificate would substantiate the said plea of the petitioners. The 3rd respondent has power to condone the delay for a period of one year. Ext.P3 has been filed within the said period. Since the delay has been satisfactorily explained, I am of the view that Ext.P9 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, it is set aside. The 3rd respondent is directed to consider Ext.P3 and dispose of the same in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioners, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.