IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2011 / 17TH POUSHA 1932 LA.App..No. 38 of 2011(D) ------------------------- LAR.26/2008 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT: ----------------------- THYAGARAJAN, SARASWATHY NIVAS, KARUVATHY PARAMBU, APPAS ROAD, GURUVAYOOR, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT: --------------- 1. SPL.TAHASILDAR (L.A.), GENERAL, GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR, COLLECOTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. 3. ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM, GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON FOR R-3 BY G.P. SMT.T.T.JOSEPHINA THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No. 38 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of April , 2011 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan, J. The claimant is in appeal. He sought for reference under Section 28A of the L.A.Act. An extent of 0.249 hectares of land comprised in Sy. No.119/5-16B of Guruvayoor Village was acquired for the purpose of providing amenities to the pilgrims of Guruvayoor temple. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.85,679/- per Are. The claimant claimed enhancement relying upon Ext.A1 Judgment in LAR No.8/1999, which was in respect of the land acquired for the same purpose pursuant to the same notification. The court below thus relying on Ext.A1 judgment refixed the land value at Rs.1,55,000/- per Are. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that this court has refixed the land value in an identical case at Rs.2,25,000/- per Are in L.A.A. No.1117/2008. (LAR No.9/1999) LAA.No.38/2011 2 The submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the property acquired and mentioned in L.A.R. No.9/1999 was also for the same purpose and pursuant to the same notification. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the claimant is entitled to get enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.2,25,000/-. 3. The learned Government Pleader strongly opposed the appellant's claim. Since the claimant had relied upon Ext.A1 judgment for refixation of the amount under Section 28A and since the refixation has already been done under Section 28A (3) based on Ext.A1, the claimant cannot aspire for any amount in excess of the amount determined and awarded under Ext.A1. 4. Learned counsel for the claimant would submit that Rule 12A which deals with redetermination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award by the Court makes it clear that on receipt of an application under section 28A from the persons interested within the stipulated period, the Collector shall conduct an enquiry after due notice to all the persons interested and after giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is further contended that the applicability of the award of the LAA.No.38/2011 3 Court and the rate of compensation to be awarded on redetermination have to be adjudicated, upon by the Collector taking into consideration all relevant facts and circumstances. According to the learned counsel if the award which was relied upon by the claimant for determination of the compensation under section 28A of the Act is appealed against by the claimants and if the Appellate Court enhances the compensation the claimant seeking to redetermine under section 28A of the Act is entitled to get the compensation again refixed based on the compensation awarded by the Appellate Court in the judgment sought to be relied upon by the claimant. Learned Government Pleader would take strong exception to the said argument. When the claimant relied upon a particular judgment or award passed by the District Collector or by the Court for redetermination of the compensation by the Reference Court under section 28A(3), the Court can award only the amount based upon that particular judgment or award, which was relied upon by the claimant. The sub-rule (ii) to Rule 12A relied upon by the claimants reads; “The re-determined compensation shall not be less than the compensation LAA.No.38/2011 4 originally awarded or shall not be more than the amount awarded by the Court. It shall not be more than the compensation originally claimed by the landowner”. 5. The claimant relied upon the award passed by the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act. An application for redetermination of compensation can be made only on the basis of the judgment of the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act. The claimant cannot therefore claim anything more than the amount awarded under that particular award. 6. The learned counsel for the claimant argued that the claimant in this case is entitled to get the compensation as determined by the Appellate Court. That argument cannot be sustained in view of the fact that the specific ground on which Section 28A reference was sought was for determination of land value based on Ext.A1 judgment and as such the claimant cannot aspire for fixing the land value at a rate more than the rate/ value fixed under Ext.A1. In view of what is stated above this appeal is rejected as not maintainable. LAA.No.38/2011 5 Refund the court fee paid on the appeal memorandum to the appellant. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk