Mary vs The State Of Kerala on 29 May, 2008
The reference was
WPC.No.22390/05 2
enquired into and at trial, the evidence on the side of the petitioners-
claimants consisted of Exts.A1 to A5 documents and oral evidence of
one of the petitioners as AW1. On the side of the respondents Ext.R1-
land acquisition file was produced. Reference court after the evidence
was over perused the file- Ext.R1 and noticed that according to the land
acquisition officer the original compensation awarded by the officer
was received by the petitioners without any protest. The court
followed the judgment of this court in Pathootty v. District Collector
(2004(3)KLT 348) which takes the view that receiving the amount
without protest is sine qua non for making a valid reference and found
that the reference which the land acquisition officer had sent and on the
basis of which the reference case was registered was not a valid
reference. On that basis the judgment was passed holding that the
petitioners are not entitled for any enhanced compensation.