IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2008 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 17651 of 2007(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. G.S.RADHA, AGED 59 YEARS, W/O. R.RAMAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT 6/967, MATHRUKRIPA, HIGH ROAD, ALWAYE. 2. R.RAMAKRISHNAN, AGED 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT 6/967, MATHRUKRIPA, HIGH ROAD, ALWAYE. 3. K.G.VENUGOPALAN, KALLATT HOUSE, KARIKKADU P.O., KUNNAMKULAM. 4. SMT. SATHI, W/O. ACHUTHA KURUP, RESIDING AT VASUDEVA MANDIRAM, WEST NADA, GURUVAYOOR AMSOM, DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. 5. ACHUTHA KURUP, AGED 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT VASUDEVA MANDIRAM, WEST NADA, GURUVAYOOR AMSOM, DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COLLECTOR, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, L.A. GENERAL, THRISSUR. 4. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, GURUVAYOOR LAND ACQUISITION, OFFICE AT GURUVAYOOR. 5. GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYOOR. R1 TO R4 BY SHRI. BASANT BALAJI, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.17651 of 2007 ------------------------------- Dated this the 4th March, 2008. J U D G M E N T Originally, the prayer in the writ petition was to quash Ext.P4 order. As Ext.P4 order was passed rejecting the claim put forward by the petitioners under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, (for short 'the Act'), petitioners have amended writ petition. Subsequently, petitioners has filed Ext.P6 application under Section 28A(3) of the Act, which was also rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer as per Ext.P7. So, the writ petition was amended incorporating the prayer to quash Ext.P7 order, and also to direct the respondents to refer the matter to the Sub Court. Initially, the stand taken by the respondent was that there were two Land Acquisition References, LAR Nos. 8 & 9 of 1999. Reference Court awarded enhancement in LAR.No.8/99, but rejected the claim for enhancement in L.A.R.No.9/99, and as such, petitioners are not entitled to any enhancement. Challenging the enhancement awarded in LAR.No.8/99, Guruvayoor Devaswom filed L.A.A.No.576/2002, and that was dismissed. Now, it is admitted that challenging the decree and judgment passed in LAR.No.9/99, the claimant has filed W.P.(C) No.17651/2007 2 L.A.A.No.1117/2003, and that was allowed by this Court. It is now admitted that special leave petition filed by the Guruvayoor Devaswom challenging the judgment in L.A.A.No.576/2002 was dismissed. It is also submitted that Guruvayoor Devaswom has decided to challenge the decision rendered by this Court in L.A.A.No.1117/2003 before the Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition. The mere fact that the Devaswom has made a decision to challenge the decision in L.A.A.No.1117/2003 is not a ground to reject the application filed under Section 28A(3) of the Act by the petitioner before the Land Acquisition Officer. According to me, the proper procedure ought to have been to refer the matter to the Land Acquisition Court, and await the decision of the Land Acquisition Court. So, the order passed by the Land Acquisition Officer dismissing the petition filed under Section 28A(3) by the petitioners, on the ground of dismissal of L.A.R.No.9/1999 is unsustainable, and liable to be set aside. He ought to have referred the matter to the Sub Court having jurisdiction over the area, and the Land Acquisition Court can consider all the contentions raised by the Devaswom, as well as the Government, while considering the claim put forward by the petitioners. W.P.(C) No.17651/2007 3 In the result, the writ petition is allowed in part. Ext.P7 order passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is hereby set aside. There will be a direction to the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to the Sub Court having jurisdiction over the area, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I make it clear that I am not expressing any opinion on the merits of the claims put forward by the petitioners, and that is a matter to be considered by the Land Acquisition Court. K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE nj.