IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 7TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 16TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 32880 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. N.KARUNAKARAN, SUDHABHAVANAN, PERUMPUZHA.P.O, KUNDARA. 2. N.VASUDEVAN, MADAVILAPUTHENVEEDU, PERUMPUZHA.P.O, KUNDARA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.AJAYA KUMAR. G RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT. 2. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA)NOLL, KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,J. ------------------------ W.P.(C)No. 32880 of 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 7th of November, 2008 JUDGMENT The common grievance of the petitioners is that the land acquisition officer has rejected the applications submitted by them under Section 28A on the reason that land covered by the court award relied on was in a different category. Exts.P4 and P5 are the impugned orders. Having gone through Exts.P4 & P5, it is clear to me that the judgment of this court in Raghava Poduval v. Special Tahsildar (2004 (3) KLT 261) was not noticed by the 2nd respondent. It has been held in that decision that to maintain an application under Section 28A, the statutory requirements are only that the award in favour of the applicants as well as the award covered by the court award relied on- both should have been in respect of the acquisition pursuant to the very same Section 4 (1) notification and it is not necessary that both parties should have been given the same rate of land value by the awarding officer. WPC.No.32880/2008 2 Under the above circumstances, I quash Exts. P4 and P5 and direct the 2nd respondent to take a fresh decision on the applications under Section28 A, which are referred to in Exts.P4 and P5, in the light of the principles laid down by this court in Raghava Poduval's case (supra). Fresh decision as directed above will be taken by the 2nd respondent at the earliest and at any rate within six weeks of receiving a copy of this judgment. (PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE) dpk