Judgment · High Court · 2009
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Land Acquisition Act s. 28A(3)
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. HINDUSTAN NEWSPRINT LTD., NEWSPRINT NAGAR POST, KOTTAYAM. ADDL.R3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM (IMPLEADED AS ADDL. 3RD RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER DT. 7.2.05 ON IA 350/05) SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI P.K. BABU FOR R1 & 3 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/05/2009…
Judgment
BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI SRI.V.PREMCHAND RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS --------------------------
#1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, VAIKOM
#2. HINDUSTAN NEWSPRINT LTD., NEWSPRINT NAGAR POST, KOTTAYAM. ADDL.R3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM (IMPLEADED AS ADDL. 3RD RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER DT. 7.2.05 ON IA 350/05) SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI P.K. BABU FOR R1 & 3 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = L.A.A. NO. 1539 OF 2002 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2007 REFERENCE ORDER --------------------------------------- Appellant filed an application under Section 28A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act to refer the matter to the Sub Court. The Land Acquisition Officer referred the matter to the Court. The reference court held that application filed by the appellant was barred and not maintainable. In Madhavan v. District Collector (200(1) KLT SN Page No.56 Case No.64) a learned Single Judge of this Court had taken a view that the court can go into the question whether the application is barred by limitation and if the court finds that application filed before the Land Acquisition Officer is barred, it cannot consider the case on merits. In Georgekutty v. State of Kerala (2001(3) KLT 623) another learned Single Judge took a view that once the matter is referred by the Collector, reference court need not enter into the question of limitation. So there is apparent conflicts between the principles laid down in the above stated decisions. Hence I am of the view that it L.A.A. NO. 1539 OF 2002 -: 2 :- is only just and proper that the case is heard by a Division Bench to resolve the conflict. In the result, the case is referred to Division Bench. Office is directed to place the case before the Honourable the Chief Justice for appropriate orders, forthwith. K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE. K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. ================================ L.A.A. NO. 1539 OF 2002 =============================== REFERENCE ORDER ------------------------------------------------------ 2nd JULY, 2007
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Land Acquisition Act — s. 28A(3).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 22 May 2009. The bench was PIUS C KURIAKOSE, P Q BARKATH ALI, K PADMANABHAN NAIR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.