MURALEEDHARAN PILIAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two items of properties which belonged to the petitioners in O.P. 24501/99 were acquired by the Government. There are two cases in respect of those items of properties, LAC 9/87 and LAC 10/87. In respect of LAC 10/87, the petitioners in the above Writ Petition filed an application for reference under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act. That application was dismissed on the ground that it was filed beyond time. In LAC 9/87, no application was filed by the petitioners for reference.

(2.) The property which belonged to the petitioner in O.P. No. 24494/99 was also acquired under the Very same notification. The petitioner in that Original Petition filed an application under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act for reference which was dismissed on the ground that it was filed beyond time. Now the petitioners in both the Original Petitions filed applications under S.28A of the Land Acquisition Act for redetermination of the compensation on the basis of the award passed by the Sub Court, Kollam in LAR 213/88. The application filed by the petitioner in O.P. No. 24494/99 under S.28A of the Act was rejected by saying that an application filed by him under S.18 of the Act reference was dismissed for the reason that it was filed beyond time, and for that reason he cannot file an application under S.28A of the Act. The application filed by the petitioners in O.P. No. 24501/99 under S.28A of the Act in respect of the property covered by LAC 10/87 was also dismissed on the very same ground. The application filed under S.28A in respect of the property covered by LAC 9/87 is being considered for taking a decision on that application. Now the grievance of the petitioners in both the Original Petitions is about the rejection of the applications filed under S.28A of the Act on the ground that the petitioners have no right to make an application under the above provision of the Act for the reason that their applications filed under S.18 of the Act for reference were dismissed on the ground that those applications were filed beyond time.

(3.) The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in so far as the applications filed by them under S.18 were not entertained for the reason that those applications were filed beyond time, it has to be said that there were no applications at all filed by them for reference under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The applications filed by the petitioners under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act were not at all considered on merits and there is substance in saying that the applications were not even entertained for the reason that the applications were barred by limitation. It is maintained by the counsel appearing for the petitioners that even though applications were filed under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act and those applications were rejected on the ground that they were barred by limitation, the applications filed under S.28A have to be considered as if no applications under S.18 of the Act for reference were made by the petitioners for the reason that on the basis of the applications filed under S.18, the petitioners did not secure a reference to the Court for considering their claim for enhancement of the compensation. In support of the above argument, the counsel placed reliance on the decision in Baburam and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another ( 1995 (2) SCC 689 ) in which in Para.35 at page 718 the Supreme Court considered the scope of the remedy available to a person under S.28A of the Act. In Para.35, there is an observation by the Supreme Court that sub-s. (1) of S.28A would apply to a person who had failed to seek and secure reference under S.18. This is a case in which even though the petitioners have filed applications for reference to court for considering their claim for getting enhancement of compensation, they did not succeed in securing a reference under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act for the reason that the applications were filed beyond time. In the light of the above observation made by the Supreme Court in the decision referred to above, it could be seen that in so far as the petitioners could not secure a reference under S.18 on the basis of their applications, the benefit that is available to them under S.28A, cannot be denied to them.