IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2008 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 25932 of 2006(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ AHAMMED KANNU, AZMA MANZIL, VIZHINJAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJASEKHARAN NAYAR SMT.MANJUSHA MOHANDAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 035. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.SHYSON P.MANGUZHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX(WPC 25932/06) PETITIONER'S EXTS.: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER DATED 29.6.2005. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER NO.A3.LAC 11/86 DATED 28.11.2005. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN LAR NO.70/1987 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT DATED 30.9.1991. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.C.NO.35088 OF 2005 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT DATED 16.12.2005. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K3/88327/05 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 31.8.2006. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT DATED 20.12.2005. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.25932 of 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 9th June, 2008 JUDGMENT Under challenge in this Writ Petition is Ext.P5 order passed by the District Collector, Trivandrum whereby the District Collector rejected an application under Section 28A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act submitted by the petitioner who was aggrieved by the refusal of the Land Acquisition Officer to redetermine the compensation which was paid to the petitioner for his acquired properties on the basis of the court judgment in LAR No.43 of 1998. The reason stated in Ext.P5 is that though the petitioner's property and the properties covered by LAR No.43/98 were covered by the very same Section 4(1) notification, the properties where of different nature and the officer had awarded two different rates of value to those properties. The issue in my opinion is covered by the judgments of this court including the judgment in Pulukunnathu Raghava Poduval v. The Special Tahsildar (2004(2) KLJ 553) which was authored by myself. What is required for maintaining an application under Section 28A is that the acquired properties and the properties covered by the court judgment relied on should have been covered by the very same Section 4(1) notification. It is not necessary that the awarding officer W.P.C.No.25932/06 - 2 - should have awarded the very same rate of land value. It is always open to the Land Acquisition Officer in a proceeding under Section 28A to give proportionately high or less value based on the court judgment to the applicant. I therefore quash Ext.P5 and direct the respondent-District Collector to refer the question of eligibility of the petitioner to have the correct compensation payable for his acquired properties redetermined under Section 28A to the competent civil court having jurisdiction over the area. Needful in this regard will be done by the respondent at his earliest and at any rate within two months of receiving copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE