High Court of KeralaWP(C)/8201/2015disposed of

Ratnavathy v. District Collector

2015-04-08Honourable Mr.Justice V.Chitambaresh3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2015/18TH CHAITHRA, 1937 WP(C).No. 8201 of 2015 (A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER:

-------------------------- RATNAVATHY AGED 58 YEARS W/O.LATE KUMARAN, KADUKKAMBALATH HOUSE ERANHIPALAM (P.O.), KOZHIKODE.

BY ADVS.SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) SRI.PRASANTH M.P RESPONDENTS:

----------------------------

1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOZHIKODE, PIN 673001.

2. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A.) KOZHIKODE, PIN 673001.

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-04-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 8201 of 2015 (A) ------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE AWARD DATED 26.02.2011.

EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF AWARD DATED 27.05.2011. EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 01.09.2011.

EXHIBIT-P4: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.02.2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:- NIL --------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE

V. CHITAMBARESH, J --------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 8201 OF 2015 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of April, 2015

JUDGMENT

The petitioner asserts that she did not receive the notice on award. This is because the notice was despatched to a wrong address. The petitioner adds that she filed an application for reference soon after the date of knowledge. 2.

Ext. P3 application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act now stands rejected by Ext. P4 order. None of the points urged by the petitioner are seen considered therein. A bald statement that the application for reference has been filed out of time would not be sufficient for the purpose. I quash Ext. P4 order and direct the second respondent to reconsider Ext. P3 application as per law. 3.

The needful shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say that the petitioner shall be put on notice and heard in the exercise.

The writ petition is disposed of.

V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE