IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 24TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 3478 of 2008(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SILVESTER, AGED 63, S/O.LATE ANNA, VADAKKETHUNDIL KIZHAKKATHIL, MANAKKARA, SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.SUNIL NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LA, KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM. BY SHRI.BASANT BALAJI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.3478 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 13th February, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner's land was acquired for a public purpose. He filed an application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act claiming re-determination. That application was dismissed on the ground that the property acquired from the petitioner and the property which was the subject matter of decree and judgment in L.A.R.No.140/1999 produced by the petitioner belong to different categories, though both properties were acquired under same notification. In Raghava Poduval v. Special Tahsildar (2004 (3) KLT 261) it was held that application filed under Section 28A of the Act shall not be rejected on the sole ground that the properties were grouped in different categories. It was further held that if the properties were acquired by the same Notification, the claimants are entitled to get the compensation re-determined. But the Land Acquisition Officer can make proportionate increase in the land value in accordance with the category of lands. So, the rejection of the application on the ground that the property involved in this case and the property which was the subject matter of L.A.R.No.140/1996 W.P.(C) No.3478/2008 2 belong to different categories is illegal and unsustainable. The order passed by the third respondent, Land Acquisition Officer, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner, which is produced as Ext.P5, is hereby quashed. The Land Acquisition Officer is directed to re- consider the application and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE nj.