IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 7TH MARCH 2008 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 5176 of 2008(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ IBRAHIMKUTTY, AGED 68, S/O.MOHAMMED KUNJU, PEEDIKAYIL VEEDU, MANAKKARA, SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.SUNIL NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LA, KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM. BY SR G.P. SHRI BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/03/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 5186 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. PADMANABHAN NAIR ,J. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.5176 of 2008 N & W.P.(C) No.5186 of 2008 P ------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 7th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT The grievance of the petitioners in both the Writ petitions are one and the same. Their lands were acquired for a public purpose. They did not file any petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Some other persons whose lands were also acquired filed petitions under Section 18 of the Act and they were awarded enhanced compensation by the Sub Court, Kollam. Petitioners filed applications under Section 28A of the Act claiming enhancement of compensation on the strength of the judgment rendered in L.A.R.No.140/1999 by the Sub Court, Kollam. Applications filed by the petitioners were rejected on the ground that the lands involved in this land acquisition case belong to different category. In view of the principle laid down in Raghava Poduval v. Special Tahsildar (2004(3) KLT 261) that is unsustainable and illegal and hence liable to be set aside. So the matter requires reconsideration. In the result, Writ Petitions are allowed. Ext.P5 orders produced in both the Writ Petitions are hereby quashed. Land Acquisition Officer is directed to reconsider the same and pass fresh orders in accordance with law and also as per the directions contained in Raghava Poduval's case (supra). Fresh orders shall be WP(C) Nos.5176 & 5186/2008 2 passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE. cks