IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 4TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 28688 of 2008(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- 1. P.GOPINATHAN NAIR, GOPU SADANAM, ANDOORKONAM P.O., POTHENCODE (VIA) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. K.SEETHAMMA -DO- -DO- 3. M.SUBITHA BEEVI, SHAJI MANZIL, PUTHUVAL PUTHEN VEEDU, ANDOORKONAM P.O., POTHENCODE (VIA), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.L.MOHANAN SMT.LIGEY ANTONY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA) COLLECTORATE, THEIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER 220 KVTC DIVISION, KSEB, THIRUVNANTHAPURAM BY G.P. SRI.BASANT BALAJI ( R1 & R2) BY SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN ( SC FOR KSEB) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,J. ------------------------ W.P.(C)No.28688 of 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT The learned Government Pleader Sri.Basant Balaji takes notice for the respondents. I have heard the submissions of Smt.Ligey Antony, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Basant Balaji, the learned Government Pleader. 2. Under challenge in this writ petition are Exts.P3 and P4 orders by which applications submitted under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act have been rejected by the land acquisition officer. The reason stated in Ext.P3 and P4 for rejection is that the land acquisition officer had awarded only lesser value for the petitioners ' land than the value which had been awarded by the land acquisition officer for the properties covered by the judgment in L.A.R. No.169/1985 (Ext.P2) which was relied on by the petitioners in their applications under Section 28A. On reading through Exts.P3 and P4, it would appear as if the land acquisition officer is of the view that for maintaining an application under Section 28A, it is necessary that the land WPC.No.28688/2008 2 acquisition officer should have awarded the same rate of land value for the concerned applicant as well as the parties to the judgment relied on. The above view is contrary to the view taken by this court in Raghava Poduval v. Special Tahsildar (2004 (3) KLT 261). It has been held in that case that to maintain an application under Section 28A, the statutory requirement is only that the acquisition of the property of the applicant as well as the party to the judgment, which is relied on by the applicant, should have been covered by the very same notification. It is clear from Exts.P3 and P4 itself and also from the various documents produced along with the writ petition that the petitioners' property as well as the property of the parties to Ext.P2 court judgment were acquired for the same purpose pursuant to the very same notification under section 4(1). That being so, the land acquisition officer could have awarded reasonable proportionate increase or reduction upon the land value given to the parties in the judgment through redetermination under Section 28A. In the instant case, according to Exts.P3 and P4, the value fixed by the land acquisition officer between the properties of the petitioners and WPC.No.28688/2008 3 the properties of the parties in Ext.P2 judgment was in the ratio of 1111 : 1235. The same ratio could have been adopted by the land acquisition officer. Since Exts.P3 and P4 are contrary to the principles of law stated in Raghava Poduval's case (supra), I quash Exts.P3 and P4 and direct the land acquisition officer (2nd respondent) to reconsider the applications under Section 28A in the light of the judgment of this court in Raghava Poduval's case and pass fresh award in accordance with law. I also direct the 2nd respondent to have due regard to the above judgment while disposing of other applications submitted by the petitioners which are yet to be disposed of by him. (PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE) dpk