MARY PHILIP Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimant in LAR 59 of 2002 and 64 of 2002 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Cherthala is the petitioner in this Writ Petition. The land owned by the petitioner was acquired for a public purpose. The Land Acquisition Officer registered L.A. Case Nos. 385 and 397 of 2000 and passed two awards on 16.9.2000. He issued notice of the awards on the petitioner. In L.A. Case 385 of 2000, the notice of award was served on the petitioner on 2.4.2001. In L.A. 397 of 2000, the notice was served on her on 23.4.2001. On 7.4.2001, the petitioner filed a petition before the Land Acquisition Officer complaining that the compensation awarded was inadequate and the matter may be referred to the competent court. The Land Acquisition Officer sent two reference orders to the court on 6.5.2002. On receipt of the records, the learned Sub Judge registered LAR 64 of 2002 and LAR 59 of 2002. The respondents filed statements. On the side of the petitioner AW1 was examined and Exts.Al to A3 proved and marked. The respondents did not adduce any oral evidence. The files of LAR 59 and 64 of 2002 were marked as Ext.R1 and R2. The court below by judgment dated 15.1.2005 held that the claim for enhancement is barred since the claim for enhancement of compensation was made after the expiry of the statutory period from the date of the award. It was held that the court is not bound to answer the references and closed the references.

(2.) Challenging the very same orders the petitioner filed two LAAs also. The registry noted that the court fee paid in both appeals were insufficient. Those matters are still pending. It is contended by the petitioner that the court below has not passed awards as contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act in these two cases and hence no appeal can be filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. In view of the contention raised by the petitioner the Bench which was hearing the appeal directed that those two LAAs need be posted after the disposal of this Writ Petition.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent/requisitioning authority has raised a preliminary objection. It was contended that the Land Acquisition Court dismissed the claim for enhancement and as such the orders impugned are appealable orders and the petitioner should have filed appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. Section 54 of the Act reads as follows.