IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2008 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 15641 of 2006(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.V.ARAVINDAKSHAN, S/O.KRISHNAN (LATE), AGED 56 YEARS, PEEIKAKKANDY HOUSE, P.O.MOORIYAD, KUTHUPARAMBA AMSOM, MOORIYAD DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDR (LA) THALASSERI, NARGANGAPPURAM, P.O. THALASSERI. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR DISTRICT, P.O.KANNUR. BY SRI JOBY CYRIAC, SC, KSIDC GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANTH BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.C.NO.15641 OF 2006 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF AWARD DATED 16-5- 1997 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN L.A.R.NO.46/1997 DATED 30-11-1998. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RE-DETERMINATION IN L.A.R.NO.46/1997, DATED 11-7-05 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27-2-2006 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. /True Copy/ PA to Judge. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).No. 15641 OF 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner in this case appears to have a genuine grievance. His grievance is that his application for re-determination of the compensation for his acquired properties which was made under Section 28A was declined and that his further application for a reference under Section 28A(3) regarding the correctness of the decision of the land acquisition officer was also declined. Ext.P3 is the order issued by the land acquisition officer rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 28A and Ext.P5 is the order of the District Collector approving Ext.P3. It was the judgment in L.A.R. No. 46/1997 ( Ext.P2 judgment) which was relied on by the petitioner in his application under Section 28 A for re-determination. Under that judgment the reference court re-fixed the land value which was awarded by the land acquisition officer at the rate of Rs. 245/- per cent as Rs. 1,000/- per cent. But ultimately, the parties to that judgment did not receive any actual enhancement since calculating the land value even at the enhanced rate, the total compensation if calculated on the WPC.No.15641/06 2 basis of the evaluation of improvements would have been more. Thus the party to Ext.P2 judgment did not derive any benefit out the refixation of land value by the court under Ext.P2. In my opinion, that was a situation which was peculiar to that party whose acquired property consisted not only of land but also improvements and determination of compensation by the method of evaluation of improvements by capitalisation of income or other methods was more advantageous to him. 2. But what is more important is that the land of the petitioner and the land which was the subject matter of Ext.P2 was covered by the very same 4(1) notification and the reference court in Ext.P2 had refixed the land value which was originally fixed at Rs. 245/- per cent as Rs. 1,000/- per cent. In other words, in my opinion, the land acquisition officer was not justified in ignoring the refixation of land value as Rs. 1,000/- per cent in Ext.P2. Ext.P2 was relevant for determining the land value and should have been relied on by the land acquisition officer in the petitioner's application under Section 28A. Sri.P.P.Ramachandran, counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's case substantially involves only land and therefore if a WPC.No.15641/06 3 redetermination of land value is made on the basis of Ext.P2, the petitioner will be eligible for considerable enhancement on account of the land value. Whatever that be, the land acquisition officer ought not have been ignored the obvious fact that the land value in relation to another case covered by the very same 4(1) notification had been refixed by the reference court. If the application under Section 28A is otherwise in order i.e. if it is within the period of limitation, the land acquisition officer should re-determine the compensation payable to the petitioner on the basis of Ext.P2. Therefore, I quash Exts.P3 and P5 and direct the land acquisition officer to restore the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 28A and to dispose of the same in accordance with law placing reliance on the enhancement granted to land value under Ext.P2. Needful in compliance with the above direction will be done by the land acquisition officer at his earliest and at any rate within three months of receiving copy of this judgment. Notice of this application will be issued to the KSIDC also since they are the requisitioning authority. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No.15641/06 4