IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2008 / 13TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 36320 of 2007(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- BALAKRISHNAN, MADANVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, ELAMPALLOOR VILLAGE, PERUMPUZHA P.O. BY ADV. SRI.V.BHASKARAN PILLAI SRI.B.VINOD RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 2. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), KALLADA IRRIGATION PROJECT NO.11, KOTTIYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/01/2008, ALONG WITH W.P.(C).No.36321/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.PADMANABHAN NAIR,J ========================== W.P. (C) Nos.36320, 36321, 36322, 36323 & 36335 of 2007 ============================== Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT These writ petitions are heard and disposed of together. The land belonging to the petitioners were acquired for a public purpose. They did not file any petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act claiming enhancement. Land belonging to other persons were also acquired for the very same purpose under the very same notification. They file petitions under Section 18 of the Act claiming enhancement. The Subordinate Judge enhanced the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer in those cases. In view of those judgments petitioners had filed petition under Section 28-A seeking redermination of the compensation. It was contended that since the compensation awarded to those persons were enhanced the petitioners are also entitled to the same land value. The Land Acquisition Officer rejected all applications on the ground that the category of the land involved in the land acquisition case in which enhancement was awarded by the Subordinate Judge, was W.P. (C) Nos.36320, 36321, 36322, 36323 & 36335 of 2007 2 different. Challenging those orders these writ petitions are filed. 2. The only question rising for consideration in these writ petitions is whether a person is entitled to claim redetermination only the property involved in the judgment produced also belonging to the same category. The question was considered by this Court in Raghava Poduval v. Special Tahsildar (2004 (3) KLT 261) and found that it is not necessary that the land involved in the judgment relied on and the land over which a person who seeks redetermination must be of the same category. It was further held that what is required is that both lands should have been covered by the very same 4(1) notification. So the view taken by the Land Acquisition Officer is illegal. Further the Land Acquisition Officer had relied on a letter written by the Principal Secretary, Finance Department to the District Collector, Kannur, with copy to all Collectors in which it was stated that the land for which the applicants claims redetermination and the land involved in the judgment must be identical. That direction is also illegal. W.P. (C) Nos.36320, 36321, 36322, 36323 & 36335 of 2007 3 3. The Land Acquisition Officer had rejected the applications filed by the petitioners solely based on a letter written by the Principal Secretary, Finance Department to the District Collector, Kannur, the orders passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in all these cases are liable to be quashed. In the result, these writ petitions are allowed. The orders passed by the Land Acquisition Officer rejecting the Section 28 A applications filed by the petitioners (Ext.P4 in W.P.(C). No.36320) are set aside. The Land Acquisition Officer is directed to take the applications filed by the petitioners back to file and dispose of the same afresh in accordance with law and in view of the principles laid down by this Court in Raghava Poduval's case, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with due notice to the petitioners in these cases. K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE dvs