IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2008 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 7553 of 2008(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ ARKANS JOSEPH, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. JOSEPH, ST. PATRIC HOUSE, 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 SRI.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.7553 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 8th April, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner's land was acquired for a public purpose. He did not file any application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, (for short 'the Act') claiming enhancement. Subsequently, he filed an application under Section 28A of the Act claiming re- determination of the land value, on account of the fact that in respect of some other property acquired for the very same purpose, the Civil Court granted enhancement. That application was rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer vide Ext.P5 order on 14.1.2008, on the ground that the land involved in this case and the land involved in LAR.No.146/1996 belongs to different category. In Raghava Poduval v. Special Tahsildar (2004 (3) KLT 261), this Court held that the fact that the properties belong to different categories is not a ground to reject the application under Section 28A of the Act. The procedure to be followed in such cases was also laid down in the said decision. So, the order passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on W.P.(C) No.7553/2008 2 14.1.2008 rejecting the application, on the ground that the land involved in both these cases are different is illegal and unsustainable, and hence liable to be set aside. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P5 order, dated 14.1.2008, is quashed. The land Acquisition Officer is directed to take the application filed by the petitioner back to file, and dispose of the same afresh, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE nj.