IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2008 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 11111 of 2008(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ KOCHUPARAMBIL JOSEPH, S/O. JOSEPH, KAVUMBAI, KUTTUMUKHAM P.O.,SREEKANTAPURAM (VIA), KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE SRI.M.M.ANTO RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, L.A, NAVEL ACADEMY PROJECT, PAYYANNUR. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.11111 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 4th June, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner in this Writ Petition challenges Ext.P6 order of the Land Acquisition Officer rejecting Ext.P2 application submitted by the petitioner under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act for redetermination of the compensation payable for his acquired properties. The Government Pleader submitted on the basis of Ext.P5 that the petitioner has been filing applications under Section 28A in succession. After Ext.P6 was issued, the Land Acquisition Officer rejected the application dated 20.5.1998 (Ext.P3). The petitioner is yet to challenge the order rejecting that application. The present application Ext.P4 has been filed by him on 9.4.2007. Ext.P4 will not be maintainable in view of Ext.P6 and the order rejecting the application dated 9.5.1995. Learned counsel for the petitioner would now submits that Ext.P2 is virtually the first application which was filed by the petitioner in view of the reason that Ext.P1, the earlier application is defective. Ext.P2 was submitted after curing defects. Learned counsel prays that this court quashes Ext.P2 and directs the Land Acquisition Officer to reconsider Ext.P2 treating it as a valid application. 2. The only ground on which Ext.P6 order has been issued by W.P.C.No.11111/08 - 2 - the Land Acquisition Officer is that there was no protest. It is fairly settled by the judgment of the Full Bench of this court in Krishnan Kutty v. The Special Tahsildar (2003(3) KLT 705) and judgments of the Supreme Court that protest by the awardee at the time of receiving the original compensation is not a prerequisite for maintaining an application under Section 28A. The preconditions are only that there should not have been a reference under Section 18 and that his case and judgment relied on are covered by the very same Section 4(1) notification. Since those two conditions were satisfied, the Land Acquisition Officer was not justified in rejecting Ext.P2. 3. I quash Ext.P6 and direct the Land Acquisition Officer to reconsider Ext.P2 treating it as a valid application without being influenced by the circumstance that the petitioner had not lodged any protest at the time of receiving the original compensation. If Ext.P2 is in order, i.e., if the judgment relied on pertains to the very same Section 4(1) notification and the application is filed within the statutory time limit, the 2nd respondent will consider the application on its merits and dispose of the same in accordance with law. It is made clear that the subsequent application Ext.P4 can be straightway W.P.C.No.11111/08 - 3 - rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer as not maintainable. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE