IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2008 / 22ND SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 6293 of 2008(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. C.EAPPEN, KALLIYIL PUTHEN VEEDU, CHERIKONNAM, THRIKKOVILVATTOM VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 2. GEEVARGHESE UMMAN, PUTHENVILA THEKKETHIL CHERIKONNAM, THRIKKOVILVATTOM P.O., KOLLAM. 3. G.GEORGE, VAKKURVILA VEEDU, CHERIKONNAM, THRIKKOVILVATTOM P.O. KOLLAM. 4. S.KUNJAMMA, THEKKEVILA VEEDU, CHERIKONNAM, THRIKKOVILVATTOM P.O. KOLLAM. 5. YOHANNAN, KALLIYIL PUTHEN VEEDU, CHERIKONNAM, THRIKKOVILVATTOM P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P 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, KOLLAM, KOTTIYAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.6293 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 13th August, 2008 JUDGMENT When this Writ Petition came up for admission Mr.Basant Balaji, Senior Government Pleader has taken notice on behalf of the respondents. I have heard the submissions of Mr.Pratheesh.P., counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Basant Balaji, Senior Government Pleader. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that applications filed by them under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act for redetermination of the compensation which had been awarded to them for their acquired properties on the basis of Ext.P1 judgment were rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer by Ext.P2 series of orders. One ground on which Exts.P2 series of rejection orders were passed is that the Land Acquisition Officer had not awarded the same value for the properties covered by Ext.P1 court award and the acquired properties of the petitioners. It is obvious that the acquired properties as well as Ext.P1 properties were acquired pursuant to the very same Section 4(1) notification dated 3.2.1987 for the same purpose. It is true that the Land Acquisition Officer had included the acquired properties of the petitioners in a category different from the W.P.C.No.6293/08 - 2 - category in which Ext.P1 properties had been included. The issue in my opinion is covered by my own judgment in Raghava Poduval v. Special Tahsildar (2004(3) KLT 261). It has been held in that decision that what is necessary for maintaining applications under Section 28A is only that the acquisition covered by the judgment relied on as well as the acquisition of the applicants properties should have been pursuant to the very same Section 4(1) notification. It is not at all necessary that the same land value rate should have been given to the applicant as well as the parties in the judgment relied on. It is always open to the Land Acquisition Officer to make proportionate deduction or increase on the basis of the court judgment. Under these circumstances, I quash Ext.P2 series of orders and direct the Land Acquisition Officer to reconsider and pass fresh awards on the applications under Section 28A filed by the petitioners in the light of the principles laid down by this court in Raghava Poduval v. Special Tahsildar (supra). The ratio maintained by the Land Acquisition Officer between the acquired properties as well as the properties covered by Ext.P1 in the matter of land value can be kept in mind by the learned Subordinate Judge and reasonable increase can be given on the basis of Ext.P1 judgment. Needful will W.P.C.No.6293/08 - 3 - be done by the Land Acquisition Officer at the earliest and at any rate within three months of receiving copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE