IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 33123 of 2008(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- KARUNAKARAN.N., SUDHABHAVAN, PERUMPUZHA P.O., KUNDARA. BY ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P SMT.T.M.RESHMI RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM. 3.THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, L.A. K.I.P NO.VII, KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR.BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.33123 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 26th November, 2008 JUDGMENT Under challenge in this Writ Petition is Ext.P3 order by which the applications submitted by the petitioner under Section 28A was rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer on the reason that the petitioner's properties were included in a category other than the category in which the properties covered by the judgment relied on by the petitioner were included. It appears to me that the principles laid down by this court in Raghava Poduval v. Special Tahsildar (2004 (3) KLT 261) were not noticed by the Land Acquisition Officer. It has been held in that judgment that to maintain an application under Section 28A, the statutory requirements are only that the award of the applicant as well as the award in party to the judgment which is relied on by the applicant should have been covered by the very same Section 4(1) notification and it is not necessary that both the parties should have been given the same rate of land value by the awarding officer. Under the above circumstances, I quash Ext.P3 and direct the third respondent to reconsider Ext.P2 application in the light of the judgment of this court in Raghava Poduval v. Special Tahsildar (supra) and take a fresh decision. Fresh decision as W.P.C.No.33123/08 - 2 - directed above shall be taken at the earliest and at any rate within six weeks of the petitioner making available to the third respondent a copy of this judgment as well as a copy of the judgment in Raghava Poduval v. Special Tahsildar (supra). The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE