IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL FRIDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1933 LA.App..No. 1345 of 2010(A) ---------------------------------------- [LAR.NO.5/2005 OF THE ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,KOLLAM] .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT IN L.A.R: ---------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ROSE MICHAEL. RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT IN L.A.R: --------------------------------------------------- THANKAMANY AMMA, ETTURATHIL KIZHAKKATHIL, PALLISSERIKKAL MURI, SASTHAMKOTTA, PIN - 690 521. BY ADV. SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Prv. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.HARILAL,JJ ------------------------------------------------- L.A.A No.1345 of 2010 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J The government is in appeal. The impugned award is passed by the reference court in a reference under Section 28A (3). The claimant respondent in his application under Section 28A relied on the award of the reference court in L.A.R No.8/1988. Under that award the parties therein was awarded only Rs.9880/- per are. Under the impugned award passed under Section 28A(3) the respondent has been awarded redetermined value of Rs.13,585/- per are. This is done by the reference court relying on the another award of the same reference court in L.A.R.No.95/1998. 2. Sri.Suresh Kumar the learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the award in LAR No.95/1988, which was relied on by the reference court was also an award passed in respect of property acquired pursuant to the very same notification. According to him, it is that award which was having more probative value as the said award was in respect of property in L.A.A No.1345 of 2010 2 Sasthamkotta Village unlike the property in L.AR. No.8/1998 which was in Sooranadu South Village. Mr.Suresh Kumar submitted that Section 28A(3) obliges the reference court to re- determine the market value of the property in accordance with the provisions of Section 18 to 28 as in the case of regular reference under Section 18. Hence in the reference under Section 28A(3) the reference Court is entitled to rely on all the relevant materials. The award in L.A.R No.95/1988 being the material which is more relevant than the award in L.A.R 8/1988, the learned Sub Judge is perfectly justified in relying that award. 3. Smt.Rose Michael, the learned Government Pleader per contra would place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramakrishna Rao V. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. (2010(4) KLT 255) SC and a recent judgment of this Court in L.A.R. No.1229/2010. She submitted that Section 28A was enacted in view of the concern of the parliament for the inarticulate rural Indian who was unable to make reference under Section 18. The legislative intentment was to ensure that he is awarded compensation on a par with some other party, based on whose award he seeks redetermination. If higher value than what is awarded to the party in L.A.R No.8/1988 is granted L.A.A No.1345 of 2010 3 to the respondent then that will result in injustice to the party in L.A.R No.8/1988. The legislative intentment was to equalise and not to create inequality, so submitted by the learned Government Pleader. 4. Having considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar and having kept in mind various precedents pertaining to Section 28A and its sub sections, we are of the view that the matter requires re-consideration at the hands of learned Sub Judge. We set aside the judgment and decree under appeal and remand the L.A.R. No.5/2005 to the Additional Sub Court. Kollam. The learned Sub Judge is directed to take a fresh decision keeping in mind the ratio emerging from Ramakrishna Rao V. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. (2010(4) KLT 255) SC and the judgment of this Court in Kakkamkovval Easwara Varriar Vs. District Collector, Kannur (judgment in L.A.A No.1229/2010) and any other decision which may be cited at the Bar by the learned Government Pleader and by the counsel for the claimant. It should be kept in mind that the redetermination under Section 28A is essentially to be made on the basis of the award relied on by the concerned applicant in the application under Section 28A. The parties will appear L.A.A No.1345 of 2010 4 before the reference court on 6.12.2011. The learned reference court will complete the enquiry and pass revised award at the earliest. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K.HARILAL JUDGE ab