The period between 15.03.2020 and 02.10.2021, as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, should be excluded while computing the period of limitation for filing an application for reference of an Award under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court impugning Ext.P3 order of the 2nd respondent - Special Tahsildar, rejecting his application seeking reference of the Award - issued with respect to the property acquired from him under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ('Fair Compensation Act' for short) -

saying that it is barred by limitation.

2. According to Shri.Raphel Thekkan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the period between 15.03.2020 and 02.10.2021 ought to have been excluded by the Special Tahsildar while computing the period of limitation, since this has been directed to be so done by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, taking note of the COVID-19 pandemic scenario. He submitted that if this period is discounted, then the delay of 137 days, caused by his client in filing the application, becomes condonable, going by Section 64(2)(b) of the 'Fair Compensation Act'. He, therefore, reiteratingly prayed that Ext.P3 be set aside and the Special Tahsildar be directed to reconsider his client's application for reference, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

3. In response, the learned Senior Government Pleader - Smt.Mable C.Kurian, submitted that the Award in question was issued on 16.10.2019 and that the petitioner ought to have filed the application for reference on or before 16.12.2019. She conceded that as per the proviso to Section 64(2)(b) of the 'Fair Compensation Act', a delay of one year could have been condoned and therefore, that had the application been made on or before 16.10.2020, the competent Authority could have done so. She submitted that, however, the petitioner had preferred his application only on 29.10.2021, which was received by the competent Authority on 01.11.2021, and therefore, that Ext.P3 is irreproachable.

4. I have evaluated the afore submissions, on the touchstone of Ext.P3, which is the order impugned in this writ petition.

5. As is luculent from Ex.P3, the Special Tahsildar merely says that even if the period ordered to be excluded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court - between 15.03.2020 and 02.10.2021 – is kept apart, it would not be of any avail to the petitioner, but without saying why. After detailing the chronology of passing of the Award and making of the application by the petitioner, said Authority jumped into a conclusion in Ext.P3 that the period mentioned in the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be excluded in the case of the petitioner; and this Court can only presume that he said so because he was under the impression that the application ought to have been filed within the period, for the benefit as ordered by the Hon'ble Court.

6. However, as is evident from the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the entire block period between 15.03.2020 and 02.10.2021 will have to be excluded while determining the periods of limitation and this can only mean that petitioner be entitled to this benefit, while making the application under the provisions of the 'Fair Compensation Act' also.

7. Viewed in that perspective, the delay caused by the petitioner, in making the application seeking statutory reference of the Award, is only about 137 days; and am, therefore, of the firm view that the Special Tahsildar ought to have considered this aspect in that angle and could not have rejected the said application, as has been done through Ext.P3.

Resultantly, I order this writ petition and set aside Ext.P3; with a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent – Special Tahsildar, to reconsider Ext.P2 application of the petitioner adverting to the afore observations and the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

At this time, the learned Senior Go