IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2008 / 23RD ASHADHA 1930 LA.App..No. 833 of 2008() ------------------------- LAR.22/2005 of SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... APPELLANT: RESPONDENT --------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LA, THALASSERY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT: CLAIMANT ---------------------- MEETHAL THEYAL SUBAIDA, D/O.ATHIKKAL MUHAMMED KUNJI.PO., ETTIKULAM. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.1907 OF 2008 IN LAA NO.833 OF 2008 DISMISSED 14.7.2008 SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.No.833 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 14th July, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal by the Government is directed against the award of the reference court in a reference under Section 28A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act. The properties of the respondent were acquired pursuant to a notification under Section 4(1) dated 22.2.1983 for the purpose of establishment of Naval Academy, Ezhimala. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.1,15,200/- per hectare. The respondent applied for reference under Section 28A(3) initially on the basis of the judgment of the reference court in LAR No.150/87 which was a case pertaining to acquisition for the same purpose and pursuant to the very same Section 4(1) notification. The land acquisition officer rejected that application on the ground of limitation. Later when the copy of the judgment in LAR No.120/87, another case pertaining to acquisition under the very same notification and the very same purpose was available, he filed a fresh application under Section 28A. That application was also rejected by the land acquisition officer on the ground that it was not maintainable. However at the instance of the respondent reference was made under Section 28A(3) to the reference court. Before the LAA No.833/08 - 2 - reference court the respondent-claimant adduced evidence consisting of Exts.A1 to A9. Ext.A1 was the judgment in LAR No.120/87 which was relied on for redetermination. Exts.A5, A6, A7 and A8 were judgments of the reference court or the High Court in reference cases and appeals pertaining to the very same acquisition. Apart from that, there was the oral evidence of the claimant as A.W.1 and that of Advocate Commissioner. The claimant and the Advocate Commissioner would depose that the acquired properties were superior in value to Ext.A1 property. The reference court noticed that the land acquisition officer had treated Ext.A1 property to be similar to that of the acquired property for the purpose of awarding the original compensation. The reference court accepted the oral testimony of the Commissioner and concluded in the absence of any counter oral evidence on the side of the Government that the report of the Commissioner Ext.C1 and the testimony of the Commissioner as A.W.2 was acceptable and that there was justification for allowing the application under Section 28A on the basis of Ext.A1 judgment. It is in that view of the matter the reference has been answered in the present manner by the reference court. Even though Mr.Basant Balaji, learned Senior Government Pleader addressed me very LAA No.833/08 - 3 - strenuously on the various grounds raised in the appeal, I am not persuaded to hold that reliance placed by the court below on Ext.A1 was not proper. In fact it is the mandate of Section 28A that the court should ensure that parties who have been treated alike by the land acquisition officer for the purpose of determining original compensation to be treated the same way when it comes to the redetermination by the reference court whether it be under Section 18 or Section 28A(3). The challenge against the judgment and the decree of the court below will fail and the appeal will stand dismissed. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE