High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2012-06-07Writ petition disposed of as above.

Renjitha Amma and Others v. Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, KIIDC (KINFRA) and Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 13220 of 2012 (B)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: ANTONY DOMINIC, J
Judgment Date: 2012-06-07
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition disposed of. Exts. P6 to P9 quashed. The first respondent is directed to issue notice to the petitioners, conduct an enquiry in the manner directed, and pass fresh orders expeditiously after production of a copy of this judgment along with the writ petition. The court noted the Abdul Rasheed principle but required verification of certified copies before granting exclusion; the matter is to be decided in light of the evidence gathered in the enquiry.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of as above.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Renjitha Amma
Anthoni Sami
Mariyadas
Manicka Ammal
Albutha Mary
Joseph
Enassi Muthu
Pushparaj
Arul Raj

Respondents

The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, KIIDC (KINFRA), Palakkad
Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram represented by its Managing Director

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Sri. Jacob Sebastian

Counsels for Respondents

• Government Pleader M. Mohammed Shafi

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition challenges orders passed under the Land Acquisition Act rejecting the applicants’ Section 28A redetermination requests for compensation. The petitioners claim that although not satisfied with compensation, they did not file a reference under Section 18, but subsequently sought redetermination under Section 28A, attaching a certified copy photocopy of the Award and seeking exclusion of the period spent obtaining the certified copy as provided by the proviso to Section 28A. The first respondent (Land Acquisition authority) rejected Exts. P6 to P9 on the ground that the copies produced were only photocopies, not certified copies, rendering the applications time-barred. The petitioners rely on Abdul Rasheed v. State of Kerala to contend that the midsummer vacation period should be excluded in computing the period of limitation. The Government Pleader concedes the principle but argues that exclusion is possible only if certified copies or evidence of obtaining them is produced. The learned Judge holds that while Abdul Rasheed provides support for exclusion, the petitioners had averred that certified copies would be obtained after vacation, obligating the authority to verify and consider the copies. The court quashes Exts. P6–P9 and directs a fresh enquiry and orders to be passed expeditiously, after due consideration of the law and the judgment.

Provisions of Law Cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 28ALand Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 4(1)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Exclusion of midsummer vacation period in computation of limitation under Section 28A (Abdul Rasheed v. State of Kerala)
Abdul Rasheed v. State of Kerala (2005 (1) KLT 5) – principle cited to support exclusion of vacation period

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that the Award was rendered on 12.04.2011 and they sought certified copies in early May 2011; the certified copies became available by 08.06.2011. Relying on Abdul Rasheed v. State of Kerala, they contend that the midsummer vacation period should be excluded under Section 28A for calculating the period of limitation, given the period required to obtain certified copies. They assert the first respondent should have verified the copies and allowed exclusion if appropriate.

Contentions of Respondents

The Government Pleader contends that exclusion of the period is permissible only if the applicants produce certified copies or at least credible material showing that such copies were obtained. He submits that mere photocopies do not establish eligibility for exclusion. He argues the petitioners failed to demonstrate timely action after obtaining photocopies and thus the applications are time-barred.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Abdul Rasheed v. State of Kerala	2005 (1) KLT 5	Positive	Court cites Abdul Rasheed to support exclusion of midsummer vacation period from computation of limitation under Section 28A; the principle is acknowledged and applied subject to verification of certified copies.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Renjitha Amma and Others v. Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, KIIDC (KINFRA) and Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC** **THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/17TH JYAISHTA 1934** **WP(C).No. 13220 of 2012 (B)** **-------------------------------------LAR.38/2002 of ADDL. SUB COURT, PALAKKAD ..................................................** ## **PETITIONER(S):** - **------------------------** **1. RENJITHA AMMA, AGED 75 YEARS W/O LATE SAURIYAR, MALAMETTUKAD KOZHIPPARA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT PIN - 678 557** **2. ANTHONI SAMI, AGED 80 YEARS, S/O LATE AROGYA SAMI, KUNNUVETTI VEEDU, ERUMAKKARANNUR, KOZHIPPARA VADAKARAPATHI, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD** **3. MARIYADAS, AGED 85 YEARS, S/O PACKYA MANIYAKKARAN SOOSAMANIYAKKARAN HOUSE CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT** **4. MANICKA AMMAL, AGED 75 YEARS, W/O AROGYA SAMI** **5. ALBHUTHA MARY, AGED 56 YEARS, D/O AROGYA SAMI** **6. JOSEPH, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O AROGYA SAMI** **7. ENASSI MUTHU, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O AROGYA SAMI** **8. PUSHPARAJ, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O AROGYA SAMI** **9. ARUL RAJ, AGED 43 YEARS,** - **S/O AROGYA SAMI** ## **BY ADV. SRI. JACOB SEBASTIAN** **DCS** ## **WP(C).No. 13220 of 2012 (B)** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------------------** **1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION, KIIDC (KINFRA),** **PALAKKAD, PIN- 678 001** **2. KERALA INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, VELLAYAMBALAM,** **THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,** **PIN 695 003** ## **BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER M. MOHAMMED SHAFI** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **DCS** ## **WP(C).No. 13220 of 2012 (B)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :-** - **EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF THE AWARD OF THE COURT OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE, PALAKKAD IN L.A.R. NOS. 38/2002 AND CONNECTED CASES** - **EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF THE APPLICATION OF THE IST PETITIONER U/S. 28A OF THE ACT ON 22.08.2011** - **EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF THE APPLICATION OF THE 2ND PETITIONER U/S 28A OF THE ACT ON 18.08.2011** - **EXHIBIT P4: COPY OF THE APPLICATION OF THE 3RD PETITIONER U/S 28A OF THE ACT ON 17.08.2011** - **EXHIBIT P5: COPY OF THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONERS 4 TO 9 U/S 28A OF THE ACT ON 18.08.2011** - **EXHIBIT P6: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 12.04.2012 RELATING TO THE IST PETITIONER** - **EXHIBIT P7: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 12.04.2012 RELATING TO THE 2ND PETITIONER** - **EXHIBIT P8: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 12.04.2012 RELATING TO THE 3RD PETITIONER** - **EXHIBIT P9: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 12.04.2012 RELATING TO THE PETITIONERS 4 TO 9** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :- NIL** ## **/TRUE COPY/** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE** **DCS** ## **ANTONY DOMINIC, J** ........................................ W.P.(C).13220/2012 .............................................. Dated this the 7[th] day of June, 2012 ## **JUDGMENT** Petitioners' properties were acquired by the respondents. According to them, though they were not satisfied with the compensation paid, applications for reference under Section 18 were not made. Subsequently, by the Award in LAR.No.38/02 and Connected cases (Ext.P1) the compensation, awarded in respect of the land covered by the same notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, was enhanced. 2. There upon the petitioners filed Exts.P2 to P5 applications under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act (in short 'the Act') seeking redetermination of the compensation. Along with the applications, they produced photocopy of the certified copy of the Award and sought exclusion of the period taken for obtaining the certified copy, in terms of the proviso to Section 28A of the Act, in calculating the period of limitation. However, by Exts.P6 to P9 orders passed by the first respondent, Exts.P2 to P5 applications made by the W.P.(C).13220/12 2 petitioners were rejected holding that since the copies produced by them were only photo copies, petitioners could not seek exclusion of the time taken for obtaining the certified copy. On this basis, the first respondent held that the applications made by the petitioners were time barred and it was on that basis, applications were rejected. It is challenging these orders the writ petition is filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, Ext.P1 Award was rendered on 12.4.2011, the date on which the Court closed for summer vacation. On 3.5.2011, they applied for certified copy and the copy was ready on 8.6.2011. Accordingly, in view of the principles laid down by this Court in **Abdul Rasheed v. State of Kerala (2005 (1) KLT, 5)** petitioners are entitled for exclusion of the entire midsummer vacation period, in computing the period of W.P.(C).13220/12 3 limitation as provided under Section 28A. 5. However, the learned Government Pleader argued in support of the impugned orders. According to him, the question of exclusion of the period can arise only if the petitioners had produced the certified copy or at least some material to indicate that the certified copy, of which the photo copy has been produced, was obtained by them. 6. It is true that in the judgment relied on by the counsel for the petitioners, this Court has held that the midsummer vacation period is to be excluded for computation of the period of limitation and that was in respect of an Award which was rendered on the date of Court closing, as in this case. Though I do find substance in what is contended by the learned Government Pleader, it is noticed from the applications made by the petitioners that it was stated that petitioners could obtain certified copy of the Award only after the midsummer vacation. When such an averment has been made, in my view, the first W.P.(C).13220/12 4 respondent should have at least called upon the petitioners to produce the certified copies relied by them to be satisfied about the correctness of what is stated in the applications. On such examination, if it is found that the certified copies were obtained by them or on their behalf, they are entitled to have the benefit of the aforesaid judgment. 7. In such circumstances, I quash Ext.P6 to P9 and direct the first respondent to issue notice to the petitioners, conduct an enquiry in the manner as directed above and pass fresh orders on the applications made by the petitioners. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible on the production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ## **ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge** mrcs