JAMESON Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Lands belonging to the petitioners were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. Dissatisfied with the award, the petitioners filed Exts.P to P11 applications before the third respondent for reference to the appropriate court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The grievance voiced by the petitioners is that the third respondent has not taken any positive steps to refer the matter to the Land Acquisition Court. The petitioners prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the third respondent to refer Exts.P7 to P11 applications to the Land Acquisition Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

(2.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the reference applications submitted by the petitioners were received on 23.1.2002. The Land Acquisition Officer approved the reference applications on 11.9.2002. The despatch seal was affixed on the office copies as on 6.11.2002 and entries were made in the local delivery book. The reference applications in thirteen cases namely, LAC.Nos. 1 to 13 along with the connected records were submitted to the Sub Court, Ernakulam on 6.11.2002. It is further submitted that the Sub Court, Ernakulam did not accept the same on the ground that award attached with the reference was not the original of the award. It is also submitted that the District Government Pleader accepted the records on 7.11.2002 and the reference papers were sent to the Sub Court again on 8.5.2003 by unregistered parcel. The further submission is that thereafter no communication was received regarding reference made to the Sub Court, Ernakulam.

(3.) It is not disputed that the award was passed on 21.12.2001. It is also not disputed that Exts.P7 to P11 reference applications were submitted by the petitioners well within time. The reference was actually made to the Sub Court, Ernakulam on 6.11.2002. So far as the petitioners are concerned, they have fulfilled the statutory requirements. They need appear before the Land Acquisition Court only on getting notice. But the fact remains that the petitioners have not received any notice from the Land Acquisition Court and the third respondent is absolutely unaware of any proceedings pending before the Sub Court. The matter should not end there. When the Land Acquisition Act provides for a remedy to the aggrieved party, he should have an effective opportunity to put forward his case as provided in the Act, Because of the procedural hazards and laches on the part of the Land Acquisition Officer, the petitioners should not suffer.