KRISHNA PILLAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petition is filed challenging Exts. P1 and P2, judgment and decree in L.A.R. No. 81 of 2002 passed by the Sub Court, Alappuzha dismissing the Land Acquisition Reference on the ground that the application for reference was belatedly made by the petitioner before the Land Acquisition Officer and therefore the reference is barred by limitation.

(2.) The award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer or, 19-11-1990. Notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 15-12-1990 and it was received by the petitioner/claimant on 18-12-1990. The claimant filed an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for reference on 05-01-1991. The reference court held that the proceedings would indicate that the petitioner was present before the District Collector when the award was passed and therefore as per the proviso to Section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, he was bound to file an application for reference within six weeks from the date of award. It was also held that the reference application having been made after six weeks from the date of award, the reference was barred by limitation.

(3.) The Registry expressed a doubt as to whether a Writ Petition could be filed challenging the judgment of a reference court and it was of the view that a Land Acquisition Appeal is the proper remedy. Direction was issued to the Registry to number the Writ Petition. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that in Georgekutty v. State of Kerala, 2001 3 KerLT 623, it was held that the reference court need not consider the question of limitation and that it is expected to answer the question referred to it. Counsel submitted that since the reference court disposed of the case ignoring the decision in Georgekutty v. State of Kerala, the petitioner can straightaway file a Writ Petition invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and that the petitioner need not file a Land Acquisition Appeal paying huge court fee to correct a mistake which was committed by the court. I am inclined to agree with the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner. The Writ Petition was directed to be numbered and it was admitted. For the reasons mentioned below it could be seen that the mistake was committed by the court. A party shall not be put to trouble to pay huge court fee to correct an obvious mistake committed by the Court. Therefore, I am inclined to hold that the Writ Petition is maintainable.