IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2010 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 20621 of 2009(W) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- THIDIL RAGHAVAN, S/O.LATE KUNJIRAMAN, RAMANTHALI AMSOM, P.O.ETTIKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY SRI.V.V.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.G.HARIKRISHNAN (TRIPUNITHURA) RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), O/O.THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), EZHIMALA NAVAL ACADEMY, PAYYANNUR. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KANNUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2010, ALONG WITH WP(C) NO. 32369 OF 2009 AND CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.20621/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 6.1.1994 IN OP. 17753/1993, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. P2:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 7.8.2000 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P3:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 31.3.2000 PASSED BY THE SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR IN LAR. NO.213/1987 ON ITS FILED. P4:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 3.10.2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. P5:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 31.7.2006 IN LAR. NO.48/2004, SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR. P6:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 24.3.2008 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. P7:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 15.1.2008 IN LAA. NO.169/2003, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. P8:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RESPONDENT DTD. 1.11.2008. P9:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 10.12.2008. P10:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SIT RESPONDENT DTD. 11.3.2009. P11:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 22.5.2008 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. P12:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT. 84.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) Nos. 20621/2009-W, 32369/2009-M, 32370/2009-M, 514/2010-L and 663/2010-G - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26th day of May, 2010. JUDGMENT These writ petitions are filed by the respective land owners aggrieved by the orders rejecting the applications filed under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, for redetermination of the compensation. Identical orders have been passed by the Special Tahsildar, in the light of the letter dated 21.2.2009 issued by the District Collector, Kannur. 2. In W.P.(C) No.32370/2009 the challenge is against Ext.P8 order. The application is rejected on two grounds. The first reason stated is that the judgment rendered by the reference court after remand by this Court in the Land Acquisition Appeal arising from the original award of the Land Acquisition Court cannot be considered for redetermination. The second point is that the applicant had filed the application after disposal of the Land Acquisition Appeal by this Court. 3. In W.P.(C) No.20621/2009 Ext.P10 is the impugned order whereas in W.P.(C) No.32369/2009 Ext.P8 is the impugned order. In W.P.(C) No.514/2010 the impugned orders are Exts.P9 and P11 and in W.P.(C) wpc 20621/2009, etc. 2 NO.663/2010 Ext.P4 is the impugned order. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Govt. Pleader. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the view taken by the Land Acquisition Officer cannot be supported in the light of the various decisions of this Court. It is submitted that the points are covered in favour of the petitioners in the light of the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Joseph v. District Collector (2004 (2) KLT 1029) and another recent decision in Annamma Thomas v. State of Kerala (2010 (1) KLT 623). 6. In Annamma Thomas' s case (2010 (1) KLT 623), it was held that “notwithstanding the fact that an order of remit has been made by an Appellate Court in exercise of the authority under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, the consequential adjudication by the reference court and the resultant award that would be passed after remit by the Appellate Court is nothing but an award under Part III of the Act. So much so, an award passed by reference court following an appellate order of remit, is an award sufficient to sustain an application under Section 28A(1) of the Act.” 7. In Joseph's case (2004 (2) KLT 1029), it was held that the award wpc 20621/2009, etc. 3 of the Court under Section 28A of the Act can include an award made by the court in a case registered under Section 18. Even though the question is not identical, it is clear that any award passed by the Land Acquisition Court can be relied upon by the parties concerned for sustaining an application under Section 28A of the Act. Therefore, the same will include an award passed by the reference court after remand. 8. Learned Govt. Pleader relied upon the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Haji A. Abdul Rashid v. Spl. Tahsildar (2008 (1) KLT 974). A reading of the said judgment shows that the issue considered is different. The issue being covered by the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the orders passed by the Land Acquisition Officer cannot be sustained. Two reasons stated by the Land Acquisition Officers concerned, viz. the award passed cannot be considered and that the application is barred by limitation, cannot therefore be sustained. 9. In W.P.(C) No.514/2010, Exts.P13 and P14 are the orders passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in applications under Section 28A(3) of the Act. In the light of the view taken by me, it is unnecessary for the petitioners to prosecute the said applications. 10. Therefore, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders wpc 20621/2009, etc. 4 are quashed. There will be a direction to the Land Acquisition Officer to reconsider the matter in accordance with law and pass fresh orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the parties. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/