Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 674 (KER)

State of Kerala v. Chirayil Velayudhan

2003-10-28

S.LEKSHMIKUTTY

body2003
Judgment :- These two appeals are filed against the judgment and decree in L.A.R. 225/1994 and in L.A.R.No.284/1994 of the Sub Court, Kozhikode respectively. The respective claimants filed application under Section 28 A of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation, based on the judgment in respect of the acquisition made on the same day under the same notification. The Reference Court enhanced the compensation against which these two appeals are filed by the state. 2. The question involved in both these appeals are whether an application can be entertained after three months on the date of passing the award. In both the cases, the application under Section 28A was filed beyond the period of three months. 3. L.A.R.No. 225/1994 filed on the basis of the judgment passed on 31-10-1991 in L.A.R.No.103/1990. The claimant in L.A.R.No. 284/1994 filed the application before the Collector on 30-4-1999 under Section 28A on the basis of the same judgment on the same day. So, admittedly both these applications are beyond three months from the date of judgment in L.A.R. No.103/1990. As per Section 28A, the application is to be filed within three months from the date of the judgment. The respective claimants filed affidavit before the Collector to condone the delay in filing the application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act on the ground that they got knowledge of the award subsequently and they have applied for copy of the award and filed the application. The Collector dismissed the application on the ground that it was beyond three months. The respective claimants applied for reference and as such both the cases were referred to the Reference Court. The Court found that there is sufficient reason to condone that delay in filing the application. It is submitted by learned Government Pleader that the court below was went wrong in condoning the delay in filing the application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act. The Court found that there is sufficient reason to condone that delay in filing the application. It is submitted by learned Government Pleader that the court below was went wrong in condoning the delay in filing the application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act. Smt. Renu, the learned Government Pleader has cited the decisions in Tota Ram v. State of U.P. & Others (JT 1997 (6), Mukri Gopalan v. Cheppilat Puthenpuravil Aboobcker (1995)5 SCC 5, State of Andhra Pradesh v. Marri Venkaiah and others (2003 AIR SCW 3683, Union of India v. Mangatu Ram (AIR 1997 S.C. 2704) to substantiate the contention that the application is to be filed within three months from the date of award and not from the date of knowledge of the award. It is submitted by learned counsel for the claimants that in all those cases the parties have not filed any application for condoning the delay in filling application under Section 28A. But here in the instant cases the claimants have filed beyond three months since they have got knowledge of the award only subsequently. If the argument of the learned counsel is accepted, any claimants can file application at any time beyond three months with a petition for condonation of delay on the allegation that he got knowledge of the award only after and the petition under Section 28 A is filed within three months from the date of knowledge of passing the award. So the said argument of the learned counsel for the claimants cannot be accepted. 4. The Supreme Court in the above said cases specifically stated that the application shall be filed within three months from the date of award and not from the date of knowledge. Therefore, the Reference Court was not justified in condoning the delay in filing application under Section 28A beyond three months from the date of award on the basis of the reason stated in the affidavit filed along with Section 28A application. The contention that there is no prohibition to file an application under Section 29 of the Limitation Act and hence the Reference Court is competent to entertain the said application cannot be accepted, since the Supreme Court in unequivocal terms observed that the application is to be filed within three months form the date of passing of the award and not from the date of knowledge. Hence the Reference Court was not justified in condoning the delay in filing Section 28 A application beyond three months from the date of award. Therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the courts below in both the cases are set aside and the appeals are allowed.