This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to quash Ext.P3 order by which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act has been rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer 3rd respondent on the ground of limitation. The petitioner filed Ext.P2 application relying on the judgment in L.A.R.No.85 of 1994 of the subordinate Judge’s Court, Mavelikara which pertained to another property covered by the Section 4(1) notification under which the petitioner’s property was also acquired. The Subordinate Judge’s Court, Mavelikara pronounced the judgment in L.A.R.No.85 of 1994 on 12.4.2002, the day on which that court was closed for midsummer vacation. The Mavelikara Sub Court was having midsummer vacation by virtue of a notification issued by the High Court under Section 19 of the civil courts Act till 25.52002. The petitioner applied for certified copy of the judgment in L.A.R.No.85 of 1994 on 25.52002 itself and did not waste time in the matter of the copy application after the same was filed. He filed Ext.P2 application within three months of obtaining the copy. However the Land Acquisition Officer passed Ext.P3 rejecting Ext.P2 on the ground of limitation. A reading of Ext.P3 will show that the Land acquisition Officer has excluded from the period of limitation only the day on which the judgment in L.A.R. 85 of 1994 was delivered and not the days when the sub Court remained closed for midsummer vacation.

2. I heard Sri. George Varghese Perumpallikuttiyil, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri. Aloysius Thomas, Senior government Pleader.

3. Sri George Varghese submitted that both under the Limitation Act as well as under Section 28A(1) of the Land Acquisiti9on Act, the petitioner was entitled to exclusion of the date 12.4.2002 as well as the time taken for obtainment of a certified copy of the judgment in L.A.R.85 of 1994 and since the subordinate Judge’s Court remained closed for vacation from 13.4.2002 till 25.5.2002, it could have been possible for the petitioner to apply for copy only on 25.5.2002, the reopening date when the application was actually made by him. Thus, according to the learned counsel, Ext.P2 application filed admittedly within 87 days of the obtainment of certified copy was perfectly on time and was not liable to be rejected.

4. Sri. Aloysius Thomas, learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that the copying section of the Mavelikara Sub Court did not have any vacation at all and was working all through the vacation. According to the learned government Pleader, the application for copy could have been filed by the petitioner on 13.4.2002 in which case he could have got the certified copy of the judgment in L.A.R. 85 of 1994 either during the vacation itself or immediately on the reopening of the court. The learned Government Pleader invited my attention to the Explanation to Section 12 and submitted that section 10 of the General Clauses act does not have any application in the present case.

5. Replying to the submissions of the government Pleader Sri. George Varghese submitted that the legislative objective underlying Section 28A was to enable poor and inarticulate people who were unable to apply for reference under Section 18 to receive the same compensation as those who could approach the reference court and therefore a liberal approach was required in the matter. The learned Government Pleader retorted quickly by inviting my attention to the judgment of the supreme Court in State of A.P. v. Marri Venkaiah (2003) 7 SCC 280 wherein the Supreme Court has said that even though Section 28A is a beneficial provision, the parties who seek relief under that provision ought too be vigilant and apply within three months of the date of the court award relied on.

6. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 12 of the Limitation Act dealing with appeals and applications for revision or review of judgments provide that in computing the period of limitation for such proceeding, the da