PALLIPURATH KUNHIKORAN Vs. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 18th June, 2013 in W.P.(C) No. 15387 of 2013, by which, the writ petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed as barred by time.

(2.) Brief facts, which gave rise to the writ appeal are: - the petitioner's land was acquired by notification dated 22.2.1983 issued under Sec. 4(1) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act. Though the compensation awarded to the appellant was very meagre, he could not initiate any proceedings under Sec. 18 for enhancement of compensation. An application under Sec. 28A was filed by the petitioner on the basis of L.A.R. No. 98/1992 which was rejected by order dated 19th July, 2008 (Ext. P1). The petitioner, thereafter, made an application (Ext. P5) for redetermination of compensation on the basis of L.A.R. No. 222 of 2001. The said application was rejected by Ext. P6 order dated 3.2.2009. The petitioner, again made an application, Ext. P7, for making reference under Sec. 28A(3), which too, was rejected by Ext. P8 dated 10.8.2009. The petitioner, aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, filed the writ petition seeking for the following reliefs: -

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in so far as the rejection of the first application under Sec. 28A by Ext. P1 order, the petitioner does not propose to challenge the said order due to the reason that he had filed another application, Ext. P5, on the basis of another LAR No. 222/2001. It is submitted that the earlier application having been rejected, which was based on another LAR is not a bar for filing another application under Sec. 28A on the basis of another award. He submits that each and every award gives cause of action to the petitioner for filing an application under Sec. 28A. Hence, the petitioner intended to prosecute Ext. P5 application. He further submitted that the rejection of Ext. P5 application by the Special Tahsildar (LA) by Ext. P6 order dated 3.2.2009 was only on the ground that earlier application has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the notice, Ext. P8, by which, the application under Sec. 28A(3) was rejected was also erroneous since the only reason for rejection is that duplicate application was erroneous. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Koyyodan Cheriya Kannan & Ors. v/s. District Collector, Kannur and Ors. [SLP (C) No. 34444 of 2013] in support of his submission. It is relevant to note that the case which sent up to the Apex Court arose from the same notification under Sec. 4(1), under which, the petitioner's land was acquired.