IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2009 / 2ND ASHADHA 1931 LA.App..No. 252 of 2004() ------------------------- LAR.97/2000 of SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANTS ----------------------- 1. K.P.SREEDEVI AMMA, W/O.LATE NARAYANAN NAIR, NEAR G.H.S. RAMANTHALI, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. K.P.VENUGOPALAN, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.K.P.SREEDEVI AMMA, NEAR G.H.S.RAMANTHALI, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, K.P.SREEDEVI AMMA. 3. K.P.PANKAJAKSHI, AGED 39 YEARS, NEAR G.H.S. RAMANTHALI, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, K.P.SREEDEVI AMMA. 4. K.P.THANKAMANI, AGED 37 YEARS, NEAR G.H.S. RAMANTHALI, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, K.P.SREEDEVI AMMA. 5. K.P.NARAYANANKUTTY, AGED 33 YEARS, NEAR G.H.S. RAMANTHALI, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, K.P.SREEDEVI AMMA. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.T.P.ELDHO RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A), KANNUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2009, ALONG WITH LAA NO. 253 OF 2004 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.R.NOs.252 & 253 OF 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. The appellants-claimants are aggrieved by the judgments of the land acquisition reference court rejecting their claim for redetermination of the market value in terms of Section 28A (3) of the Land Acquisition Act. The acquisition was of property in Ramanthali village for the purpose of Ezhimala Naval Academy. The appellants had not sought for reference under Section 18. However, relying on court judgments, they applied to the land acquisition officer under Section 28A. The land acquisition officer noticed that the category of the property covered by the court judgment relied on by the appellants and the category of the appellants' property was different. Therefore it was held by the land acquisition officer that redetermination under Section 28A cannot be done. The learned Subordinate Judge also in reference under Section 28 A (3) approved the decision of the land acquisition officer. 2. Sri.K.T.Paulose, learned counsel for the appellant would LAA.Nos.252 & 253 of 2004 2 draw our attention to the judgment of this court in Raghava Poduval v. Spl. Tahsildar ( 2004(3)KLT 261) and submit that following the principles laid down in that reference, the reference court could have fixed the market value of the acquired property suitably giving proportionate increase or decrease, as the case may be, on the value reflected under the judgment relied on. We find merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants in view of the principles laid down by this court in Raghava Poduval's case ( cited Supra). May be it is true that the property of the appellants had not been awarded the same value as had been awarded by the land acquisition officer to the property in the judgment relied on. But both the properties were acquired pursuant to the very same Section 4(1) notification and for the same purpose. Therefore, the necessary ingredients for maintaining application under Section 28 A were available in this case. According to us, the court below could have refixed the market value of the acquired properties giving proportionate addition or deduction on the basis of the ratio maintained by the land acquisition officer between the values awarded by him to the property LAA.Nos.252 & 253 of 2004 3 covered by the judgment relied on and the property of the appellants. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgments and decrees and remand L.A.R.Nos. 89/2000 & 97/2000 to the Subordinate Judge's Court, Payyannur. That court will have due regard to the principles laid down by this court in Raghava Poduval v. Spl. Tahsildar ( 2004 (3)KLT 261) and take a fresh decision in the L.A.Rs at the earliest and at any rate within six weeks of receiving copy of this judgment. The appellant is permitted to place copies of the judgment of this court in L.A.R.No.80/89 and the reference court will take up fresh decision keeping in mind the principles laid down in Raghava Poduval v. Spl. Tahsildar ( 2004(3)KLT 261) . The appeal is allowed by way of remand. But in the circumstances, without any order as to costs. Refund full court fee paid on the appeal memoranda to the counsel for the appellants. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI sv. JUDGE LAA.Nos.252 & 253 of 2004 4 LAA.Nos.252 & 253 of 2004 5