Petitioner challenged rejection of Section 28A application seeking compensation redetermination. Court found delay was clerical, not negligent, holding application was within time. Quashed rejection and directed merits consideration within two months.
Impugned order quashed; 2nd respondent directed to consider Ext.P2 application on merits within two months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/12TH MAGHA, 1937
WP(C).No. 71 of 2016 (H)
PETITIONER(S):
SUGATHAN, S/O.SREEDHARAN, SHRAVANI, TC 6/2176, PRASANTH NAGAR, AKKULAM, THURUVIKKAL (PO), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR SRI.G.BIJU
RESPONDENT(S):
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 043.
2. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (SPECIAL TAHSILDAR). ADDITIONAL LA UNIT, CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKUNNU. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 043.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.R.RENJITH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
PJ
WP(C).No. 71 of 2016 (H)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
NIL.
/ TRUE COPY /
P.S. TO JUDGE
PJ
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
W.P.(C) No.71 of 2016
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, whose land was acquired for widening of the Ulloor-Akkulam-Kuzhivila N.H. By-pass Road, is aggrieved by Ext.P7 order, whereby the 2nd respondent rejected an application preferred by the petitioner under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, for redetermination of the amount of compensation. In Ext.P7 order, the application of the petitioner is seen rejected on the ground that it was filed beyond the time prescribed for maintaining an application under Section 28A of the Act. In a statement filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is seen that the judgment of the court below in the L.A.R. is dated 31.03.2015 and the certified copy of the said judgment was received by the petitioner on 19.08.2015. Within the said period, the time between 17.06.2015 to 23.07.2015 and 28.07.2015 to 28.07.2015, totaling 58 days, is the time lost to the petitioner on account of the delay occasioned by him, for obtaining the certified copy of the judgment. After excluding the said days, the last permissible date for submitting the application would be 28.08.2015, as provided under the Proviso to Section 28A, and the
W.P.(c).No.71 of 2016
: 2 :
petitioner appears to have filed his application on 24.08.2015. I, therefore, find that the application preferred by the petitioner is within time and hence Ext.P7 order of the 2nd respondent cannot be legally sustained. I, therefore, quash Ext.P7 order and direct the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P2 application of the petitioner on merits, after finding that the same is filed within the time granted under the Statute. The 2nd respondent shall consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 application within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE
sm/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's application under Section 28A was filed within the time prescribed despite clerical delay in obtaining the certified copy of the judgment.
Whether the lower authority's rejection of the application on grounds of time lapse is legally sustainable.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SUGATHAN
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
