IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2009 / 4TH ASHADHA 1931 LA.App..No. 384 of 2001(A) -------------------------- LAR.8/1998 of SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER: ---------------------- CHUNNAMBI MADHAVI, D/O. AMBU, PUNNAKKAD, PAYYANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.C.JAMES SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT: ----------------------- THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION, KANNUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.384 OF 2001 ------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. This is an appeal by the claimant and is directed against the judgment and decree in L.A.R.No.8/1998 of the Sub Court, Payyanur. The above case was a reference under Section 28A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act. It is seen from the impugned judgment that the learned Subordinate Judge has answered the reference in the negative taking the view that the acquired property is not comparable with the properties covered by the judgment relied on by the claimant in her application under Section 28A(3). It is obvious that the appellant's property as well as the properties of the party to the judgment relied on in the application under Section 28A were acquired for the same purpose and pursuant to the very same Section 4(1) notification. On reading of the impugned judgment, it appears to us that the learned Subordinate Judge was under the impression that the properties covered by the judgment relied on in the application under Section 28A should have been exactly similar to the LAA.No.384/2001 2 acquired property. The impression of the learned Subordinate Judge is wrong in view of the judgment of this court in Raghava Poduval v. Special Tahsildar (2004 (3) KLT 261). The statutory pre-requisite for maintaining application under section 28A(3) is that the property of the applicant as well as the property which is subject matter of the judgment relied on should have been acquired pursuant to the very same Section 4(1) notification. That pre requisite is satisfied in this case. 2. We therefore set aside the judgment and decree under appeal and remand the land acquisition reference case back to the reference court. The reference court will take fresh decision in the LAR keeping in mind the principles laid down by this court in Raghava Poduval's case (supra). Needful pursuant to this direction shall be done early and at any rate within four months of receiving a copy of this judgment. Refund full court fee paid on the appeal memorandum to the counsel for the appellant. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE dpk LAA.No.384/2001 3 PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.384 OF 2001 ------------------------ JUDGMENT 25TH JUNE 2009 LAA.No.384/2001 4