IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 27TH MAGHA 1932 LA.App..No. 37 of 2011(D) ------------------------- LAR.258/2007 of SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): 2ND CLAIMANT -------------------------- VIJI.P.ISSAC, S/O.ISSAC, PONNAL HOUSE, OORAMANA. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY SRI.G.HARIKRISHNAN (TRIPUNITHURA) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 AND IST CLAIMANT ------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM-682 031. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MVIP, DIVISION NO.III, KOOTHATTUKULAM-686 662. 3. ELDHO VARGHESE, S/O.VARGHESE, NEDILAMATTATHIL HOUSE, OORAMANA-686 730. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.LATHA T.T.HANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No. 37 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Even though attractive grounds are raised in this appeal and Sri.Dinesh R.Shenoy, learned counsel for the appellant made fervent submissions on the basis of those grounds, we are of the considered view that the appeal is not maintainable in law. The appellant filed application under Section 28A seeking redetermination of the market value payable for his property on the basis of court judgment in L.A.R. No.102/2001. The Land Acquisition Officer did not allow the application stating certain technical reasons. The Reference under Section 28A (3) was made to the court and the court under the impugned judgment allowed the Reference and redetermined the market value based on the judgment in L.A.R. No.102/2001. In fact, before the Reference Court the appellant had produced certain subsequent awards under which still higher value had been awarded. According to the Court below, placing reliance on those judgments will amount to conferring on the appellant more benefits than what had been conferred upon the party L.A.A.No.37/2011 2 to L.A.R. No.102/2001. This court has been taking consistent view that in proceedings under Section 28A the claimant cannot aspire for more value than what has been awarded to the party relying on whose judgment the application under Section 28A is filed. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the appeal is not maintainable and the same will stand rejected. The Registry will refund the court fee remitted on the appeal memorandum to Sri.Dinesh R.Shenoy. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk