IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2009 / 18TH ASHADHA 1931 LA.App..No. 481 of 2004() ------------------------- (LAR NO.44/2001 OF SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR) APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT. ----------------------- VAIKATH PUTHIYAVEETTIL RAMESAN, S/O.VAIKATH PUTHIYAVEETTIL, KUNHIRAMA PODUVAL, P.O.RAMANTHALI, VIA.PAYYANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT. -------------------------- THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A), KANNUR. GOVT.PLEADER SMT.LATHA T.THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.481 OF 2004 ------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The claimant in a reference under Section 28A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, being aggrieved by the rejection of the reference by the reference court, has preferred this appeal. One of the grounds on which the reference was rejected by the reference court is that it was without protest, that the original compensation awarded by the land acquisition officer was received by the appellant claimant. It is very clear to our mind that the reference court was in error in insisting that for reference under Section 28A(3), or for that matter, an application under Section 28A is answered favourably and compensation is redetermined on the basis of the court judgment relied on, the claimant should have received the original compensation under protest. In fact, Section 28A is for such claimants who failed to make proper application for reference under Section 18, for which only it is obligatory that the receipt of the original compensation should have been under protest. The issue is no longer res integra and is covered in favour of the appellant claimant by several judgments of the Supreme Court including the judgment in Babu Ram v. State of U.P.(1995 (2) SCC 689) & Union of India v. Hansoli Devi (2002 (7) SCC 273). 3. The result is that the judgment under appeal is set aside and the LAR is remanded to the Subordinate Judge's court Payannur. That court is directed to answer the reference on the basis of the evidence which has already come on record at the earliest and at any rate within three months of receiving a copy of this judgment. Refund the full court fee paid on the appeal memorandum to Sri.Ramesan Nambisan, learned counsel for the appellant. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE dpk