IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2010 / 10TH JYAISTHA 1932 LA.App..No. 720 of 2009(D) -------------------------- LAR.101/2008 of SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/CLAIMANT: ------------------------- PAILY KURIAKOSE, AGED 68 YEARS, THEKKEKUDIYIL (H), ARAKUZHA VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. MR.K.S.BABU MS.N.SUDHA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM,. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, M.V.I.P.DN.NO.II, KOOTHATTUKULAM,. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.K.SANIL KUMAR THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.720 Of 2009 ---------------------- Dated this the 31st day of May, 2010. J U D G M E N T The claimant in L.A.R.No.101 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha is the appellant. The court below answered the reference finding that the claim petition is not maintainable. An extent of 15.60 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.715/8-A4 of Arakuzha Village and the improvements thereon were acquired for the construction of M.V.I Project. Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 31.10.1982. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at the rate of Rs.1,400/- per Are. Possession of the property was taken over on 10.10.1985. The claimant failed to submit an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore the compensation proceedings has attained finality. Subsequently, the reference court in L.A.R.No.487 of 1987 and other connected cases, passed a common decree and judgment in which the land value was enhanced and re-fixed at the rate of Rs.4,475/- per are. Therefore the claimant submitted an application under L.A.A.No.720 Of 2009 ::2:: Section 28A(1) of the Land Acquisition Act to redetermine the compensation on the basis of the land value fixed in L.A.R.Nos.78 & 79 of the same court. The Land Acquisition Officer rejected the application. The reference court also dismissed L.A.R.No.101 of 2008 stating that it is not maintainable. 2. On two earlier occasions the claimant submitted applications under Section 28A(1) of the Act to redetermine the compensation on the basis of the land value awarded by the reference court in similar cases. Those applications were rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer finding that those applications are filed belatedly. The court below held that the present reference application is not maintainable for the reason that earlier application submitted by the claimant were rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that earlier applications were not decided on merits and those applications were rejected for the reason that the applications are time barred. According to the learned counsel, there was no valid application submitted and therefore the L.A.A.No.720 Of 2009 ::3:: present application filed within time is the first application which can be entertained by the court. In the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India & another v. Hansoli Devi and others(2002(7) SCC 273) and connected cases, the Apex Court held as follows: “The expression “did not make an application”, as observed by this Court, would mean, did not make an effective application which had been entertained by making the reference and the reference was answered. When an application under Section 18 is not entertained on the ground of limitation, the same not fructifying into any reference, then that would not tantamount to an effective application and consequently the rights of such applicant emanating from some other reference being answered to move an application under Section 28A cannot be denied.” The Apex Court accordingly held that dismissal of an application seeking reference under Section 18 on the ground of delay would tantamount to not filing an application within the meaning of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. L.A.A.No.720 Of 2009 ::4:: 4. The Apex Court in Union of India and another v. Pradeep Kumari and others (1995(2) SCC 736) held that “benefit of redetermination can be availed of on the basis of any one of the awards made by the court after coming into force of Section 28A and specifically held that right of redetermination is not confined to the earlier award made by the court”. Going by the dictum laid down by the apex Court, it cannot be disputed that this is the first valid application submitted by the claimant for redetermination of the compensation under Section 28A(1). If that be so, the court can ignore the previous applications which are not valid applications and the court need not look into the questions as to whether the applicant had filed application one after another and whether it will be an endless process or not. 5. In view of the position I have stated in the preceding paragraphs, the reference application is maintainable. The decree and judgment passed by the court below are set aside. The reference court is directed to consider the reference and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, at any rate, within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. L.A.A.No.720 Of 2009 ::5:: In the result, the appeal stands allowed. There will be no order as to costs. The parties shall appear before the reference court on 28.6.2010. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-