IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931 WA.No. 1135 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.4539/2007 Dated 22/02/2008 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER:- -------------------------- YASODA, PANIKKARUVEETTIL, ANNOOR P.O., VIA PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS:- ---------------------------- 1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), NAVI ACADEMY, RAMANTHALI, P.O. PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. BY G.P. SRI. BENJAMIN PAUL THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN, Ag. C.J. & C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W. A. No. 1135 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Raman, Ag. C. J. Appellant is the writ petitioner who challenged Ext.P2 order passed by the Land Acquisition Officer rejecting his application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act. 0.4087 hectares of land belonging to the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant was acquired for public purpose. For the purpose of compensation, appellant did not opt for market value, instead he opted for capitalisation method, i.e., for value based on improvements effected in the property. So considering the space between yielding trees compensation higher than the land value was awarded to him. No application under Section 18 was filed. Subsequently at the instance of some of the land owners whose property was acquired and who filed application under Section 18 and got higher compensation, appellant filed application under Section 28A seeking the benefit. His application was rejected stating that he was not awarded land value and compensation was awarded 2 taking into account standing space between yielding trees. Before the learned single Judge it was contended that petitioner in LAR No. 120 of 1987 was also awarded compensation taking into account standing space between yielding trees. But the finding by the learned single Judge is that mode of calculation for awarding compensation in LAR No.120 of 1987 was entirely different and therefore Section 28A benefit cannot be given to the appellant. The question as to whether the mode of calculation in LAR 120 of 1987 is different from the mode of calculation in appellant's case is a question of fact. The finding of the learned single Judge is not shown to be in any way wrong. In the circumstances, we find no ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned single Judge. Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. (P.R. RAMAN) Ag. Chief Justice (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. kk 3