IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 30749 of 2008(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.SANTHA, THADATHIVILA VEEDU, SHOORANADU NORTH, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.BHAGAVAT SINGH RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 2. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) NO.II, KOLLAM AT KOTTIYAM, PIN 691 572, BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI. BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ------------------------------- W.P(C). No. 30749 OF 2008-I ------------------------------- Dated this the 12th November, 2008. JUDGMENT The challenge is against Ext.P3 order rejecting an application submitted by the petitioner under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act for re-determination of the compensation for acquired properties on the basis of a relevant court award. The reason stated in Ext.P3 is that the original award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in favour of the petitioner was passed prior to 24.9.1984, the date on which Section 28A came into force. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner places strong reliance on the judgment of this Court in Louis Joyi v. State of Kerala {1997(1) KLT 762} and argues that for maintaining an application under Section 28A the date of the original award passed by the officer is not relevant and that the only question to be considered is whether the court award relied on has been passed in pursuance to the very same notification under Section 4(1). The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had occasion to deal with the question whether the provisions introduced in the Land Acquistion Act 1894 by the Land WPC No: 30749/08 2 Acquisition Amendment Act of 1984 are prospective or retrospective. The Constitution Bench in K.S.Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and others {AIR 1995 SC 1012} held that the special amount payable under Section 23(1)(A) will be admissible only in those cases where the officer had passed his original award subsequent to 30.4.1982. It appears to me that the second respondent had that judgment in mind while he passed the impugned order. But that judgment has nothing to do with applications under Section 28A. The issue is covered in favour of the petitioner by judgment of this Court in Louis Joyi's case (supra). I do not find any reason to disagree with the view taken by this Court in Louis Joyi's case. Following that judgment, it is to be found that Ext.P3 is bad. 3. Learned Govt. Pleader is technically correct when he submits that petitioner has remedy under Section 28A(3). However, since the impugned order is passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on a clearly erroneous view of law as settled by this Court, I am of the view that petitioner can be granted relief straight away. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Ext.P3 is quashed and the second WPC No: 30749/08 3 respondent is directed to restore Ext.P1 and to dispose of the same on merits in accordance with law at the earliest and at any rate, within three months on receiving copy of this judgment. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE jj