E SUBAIR KUNJU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is filed mainly with the following prayer :-

(2.) THE main contention of the petitioners is that they were under the impression that the acquisition proceedings had already been dropped, and hence the applications submitted by them for reference should be treated to have been filed in time. Learned Government Pleader, referring to the counter affidavit submits that except the petitioners, all others in the locality had taken timely action and the contention that the proceedings had been dropped is factually incorrect. It is also submitted that the petitioners 7 and 8 had not filed any application for reference even belatedly. It is seen from the counter affidavit that the award was passed on 15.10.2001, with due notice to the parties. It is also seen that Section 12(2) notice had been served on the parties, immediately after passing the award. THEre is no reply affidavit. Thus it is fairly clear from the averments in the counter affidavit that the petitioners had not taken action for reference within the permitted period of six weeks and hence their case cannot be directed to be referred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Sub Court. THE writ petition is hence dismissed making it clear that the judgment shall not stand in the way of the petitioners taking steps under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act.