IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2008 / 20TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 8854 of 2008(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SR.ROSALIA, MOTHER SUPERIOR, ADORATION CONVENT, MARIKA, PALAKUZHA VILLAGE, MOOVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, TRIVANDRUM. 2. TAHSILDAR (L.A), MVIP, KOOTHATTUKULAM. BY SR.G.P. SHRI BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/04/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 7962 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. PADMANABHAN NAIR ,J. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.7962 of 2008 W & W.P.(C) No.8854 of 2008 D ------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 9th day of April, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioners' lands were acquired for a public purpose. They have filed applications under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act claiming redetermination of the compensation fixed. They produced a common judgment rendered by the Sub Judge, Muvattupuzha in L.A.R.Nos.145/2002, 146/2002 and 10/2003. According to the petitioners the properties involved in L.A.R.No.10/2003 and the properties involved in these two Writ Petitions were acquired under the same notification. In W.P.(C) No.8854/2008 the Land Acquisition Officer rejected the application by a single sentence stating that the application was not in accordance with law. In W.P.(C) No.7962/2008 it was stated that the L.A.C.No.21/1997 is covered by another notification. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the properties involved in L.A.R.Nos.145/2002 and 146/2002 were acquired under a different notification, but so far as L.A.R.No.10/2003 is concerned the property involved in that case was acquired under the very same notification. The mere fact that the docket sheet contains a different number is not a ground to reject the application under Section 28A. Land Acquisition Officer ought to have considered whether the properties involved in L.A.R.No.10/2003 and the properties involved in these two Writ WP(C) Nos.7962 & 8854/2008 2 Petitions were acquired under the very same notification. So I have no other option but to quash Ext.P3 produced in both the Writ Petitions. In the result, both the Writ Petitions are allowed. Ext.P3 in both the Writ Petitions are quashed. Land Acquisition Officer is directed to take Section 28A applications filed by the petitioners back to file and consider whether the notification issued in L.A.R.No.10/2003 and the notification in these two Writ Petitions are one and the same and pass orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. It is made clear that even if the properties belong to different categories the applications cannot be rejected and the values of the properties are to be calculated as per the principles laid down in Raghava Poduval v. Special Tahsildar (2004 (3) KLT 261). K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE. cks