IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 LA.App..No. 665 of 2004(A) --------------------------------- LAR.11/2001 of SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------- 1. KODIYATH VADAKKE VEETTIL MEENAKSHI AMMA, RAMANTHALI. 2. K.V.JANAKI, AGED 52 YEARS, RAMANTHALI AMSOM DESOM. 3. K.V.BHARGAVI, AGED 47 YEARS, RAMANTHALI AMSOM DESOM. 4. K.V.PADMAVATHI, AGED 38 YEARS, RAMANTHALI AMSOM DESOM. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), KANNUR. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BENNY VARGESE THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = L.A.A. NO. 665 OF 2004 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25th day of November, 2009. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Land Acquisition Court, Payyannur in LAR Nos.99/00 and 11/01. It was an application filed u/s 28A of the Land Acquisition Act. The grievance of the claimants is that for a less important property acquired under the very same notification on which a reference was made as LAR98/92, the court passed a higher award and therefore the persons who had not preferred a reference is handicapped and are at least entitled to that amount and therefore had moved the court. The Land Acquisition court felt that the lands are not similar and similarly situated and therefore refused to entertain the application. The learned counsel for the appellant had cited before me the decision of the Apex Court reported in Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari 1995 (2) SCC 736 wherein the Apex Court has laid down the conditions to be satisfied for L.A.A. 665 OF 2004 -2- redetermination of compensation as follows. “(i) An award has been made by the Court under Part III after the coming into force of Section 28-A; (ii) by the said award the amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11 has been allowed to the applicant in that reference; (iii)the person moving the application under Section 28-A is interested in other land covered by the same notification under Section 4(1) to which the said award relates; (iv) the person moving the application did not make an application to the Collector under Section 18; (v) The application is moved within three months from the date of the award on the basis of which the redetermination of amount of compensation is sought; and (vi) only one application can be moved under Section 28-A for redetermination of compensation by an applicant.” L.A.A. 665 OF 2004 -3- He had also cited the decision of a learned Judge of this court reported in Raghava Poduval v. Special Tahsildar (2004 (3) KLT 261) it was held in that case that the Land Acquisition Officer can award a reasonable proportionate enhancement or reduction upon the land value given to the parties in the judgment relied on through the redetermination which is directed to be done u/s 28A. In this context I make a reference to the Commissioner's report in the case. The Commissioner in LAR Nos.99/00 and 11/01 had visited the property in these cases as well as the property in LAR 98/92. The Commissioner has very clearly stated that the acquired properties are garden lands having full of trees and these properties will fetch more value than the property in LAR 98/92. He also pointed out that the property involved in LAR 98/92 lies on a lower level of 1½ mtr. from the road and that property is a dry land which is not suitable for agricultural purposes. So far as the present property is concerned it is stated that it is a garden land and it is only situated one km away from the Ramanthaly town whereas the other property is L.A.A. 665 OF 2004 -4- situated 1½ km from the town. So when there is an enhancement given in that case it is a matter which requires consideration at the hands of the court. Therefore I set aside the order passed by the court below and remit the case back to the said court for fresh consideration in the light of the principles laid down in the two decisions referred to above and also to fix the quantum as ordered in one of the decisions. Unless the Court is able to say precisely that the lands are totally of different nature it may not be justifiable for the Court to refuse determination u/s 28A(3). Parties are directed to appear before the court below on 21.12.2009. Since the claimant has limited his claim to Rs.50,000/- the maximum that can be awarded cannot exceed the same. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-