Delay in application under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 cannot be condoned; strict adherence to three-month limit is mandatory.

JUDGMENT

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 32616 of 2017 has filed this appeal challenging the judgment of a learned single Judge dated 29.01.2019, whereby the following reliefs sought for in the writ petition were declined:

1. Issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ, order or direction calling for records leading to Ext.P7 order and to quash the same;

2. Issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate order or direction setting aside Ext.P7 order and to direct the 4th respondent to consider Ext.P5 application made under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on merits based on Ext.P8 judgment.

2. The subject matter arises under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘Act, 1894’ for short). The learned single Judge, after taking into account the provisions of of the Act, 1894 and the decisions of the Apex Court inRam Singh Bhai Jaeram bhai v. State of Gujarat and another [ AIR 2018 SC 2629 ],Tota Ram v. State of U.P. & others [ 1997 (6) SCC 280 ], State of A.P. v. Marri Venkaiah and others [ AIR 2003 SC 2949 ], State of Orissa and others v. Chitrasen Bhoi [2009 (17) SCC 76] andPopat Bahiru Govardhane and others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and another [ 2013(10) SCC 765 ], dismissed the writ petition holding that the application submitted by the appellant is a belated one and the delay caused in filing the application cannot be sustained, in view of the imperative nature of of the Act, 1894. It is, thus, challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment of the learned single Judge, the writ appeal is filed.

3. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ appeal are as follows:

The appellant is the owner of an extent of 0.95 sq. meters of property comprised in survey No. 597-B, LA Re. Sy. No. 35/192 of Cheruvickal Village, Thiruvananthapuram District. The above said land was sought to be acquired by the Special Tahsildar, Additional LA Unit, Kodappanakkunnu, Thiruvananthapuram—second respondent for the purpose of widening Ulloor-Akkulam-NH Bypass Road as per the Land Acquisition Notification No.LAC 132/2008. According to the appellant, there was some dispute between the appellant and the Special Tahsildar—second respondent with respect to the total area of the land that was required to be acquired. Various other contentions are also raised by the appellant with respect to the same.

4. Anyhow, it is submitted that the second respondent sought to acquire 4.80 meters of land from the appellant, which was objectionable to her. Therefore, she approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 21875 of 2005, in which Exhibit P1 order dated 22.07.2005 was passed staying the acquisition of the land belonging to the appellant, and a direction was issued to the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, to hear the representation of the appellant before proceeding with the acquisition of the appellant’s property.

5. It is also submitted that, since there was a failure on the part of the Chief Engineer to comply with the order, she submitted Exhibit P2 representation dated 30.09.2008. Thereafter, W.P.(C) No. 36120 of 2008 was filed seeking stay of acquisition proceedings of the property of the appellant comprised in re-Survey No. 597/B of Ulloor Village and proceedings were stayed as per Exhibit P3 order dated 09.12.2008. It is further submitted that since there was violation of the interim order granted, the third respondent was directed to appear in person.

6. The case projected by the appellant is that the award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer under S