IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2008 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 17842 of 2007(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ LEKSHMI SAVITHRI, CHITTOOR THEKKATHIL, KOTTAKKAKATHU VEEDU, CHITTOOR, NOW RESIDING AT ADIKKATTU VEEDU, SOORANADU SOUTH, KIDANGAYAM NORTH, PATHARAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY REVENUE SECRETARY, TRIVANDRUM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A), NO.II, KOLLAM. 4. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A), THE KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LIMITED, CHAVARA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY VARGHESE FOR R1-4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.C.NO.17842 OF 2007 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AWARD EXT.P2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION DATED 10-6-2000 EXT.P3 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17-3-03 EXT.P4 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 27-4-04 EXT.P5 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION DATED 10-8-06 EXT.P6 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER. /True Copy/ PA to Judge. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).No.17842 OF 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges Ext.P6 order of the Land Acquisition Officer. Under Ext.P6 the Land Acquisition Officer turns down the petitioner's request for release of the benefits extended to her under the judgment of this court in O.P.No.29155/2001. Under that judgment this court directed the District Collector to extend the statutory benefits such as interest and solatium to the petitioner and others due upon the compensation which had been re-determined under Section 28A. It is not disputed by the petitioner that pursuant to the judgment in the original petition statutory benefits in respect of the property covered by award No.252/77 were extended to the petitioner. Her grievance is that in respect of the properties covered by award Nos. 47/77, 48/77, 111/77, 61/78 and 121/78, such benefits were not extended. Under Ext.P6 the land acquisition officer informs the petitioner that the judgment in the original petition pertains only to these properties of the WPC.No.17842/07 2 petitioner covered by award No. 252/77 and since the properties mentioned in the other awards are not covered by the judgment in the original petition, it is not possible to extend the benefits given under the original petition judgment to those properties. The above view of the Land Acquisition Officer cannot be said to be wrong. In paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit filed by the Land Acquisition Officer this is what the said officer says. “It is humbly submitted that in Ext.P2 petition, there a reference regarding an application No.A-896/98 which was an application under section 28(A) of Land Acquisition Act filed before the District Collector, Kollam. That 28(A) application was filed for the entire land acquired by the Government vide award Nos. 252/77, 47/77, 48/77, 111/77, 61/78 and 121/78. But, it was seen from the records that only with regard to the property covered by award No. 252/77 has been enhanced by the Land acquisition Officer in other award enhancement has not been made as per section 28(A) of Land Acquisition Act. That application for enhancement under section 28(A) of LA Act was filed by the petitioner on 25-7-1998 before the District Collector, Kollam.” 2. Sri.C.Rajendran, counsel for the petitioner submitted that WPC.No.17842/07 3 this court under the judgment in the original petition only ruled that awardees under Section 28A are eligible not only for the re-determined land value but also for the consequential statutory benefits. The submission of Sri.C.Rajendran that awardees under Section 28A are entitled for statutory benefits also is well founded. But the question is whether it can be said that the petitioner is an awardee under Section 28A in respect of the properties covered by award nos. 47/77, 48/77, 111/77, 61/78 and 121/98. The above aspect of the matter is not clear from the counter affidavit. In fact it appears to me that probably re-determination has not been made in respect of the properties covered by those awards. Whatever that be, it is only appropriate that the petitioner be informed as to the fate of her request for re-determination of compensation under Section 28A in relation to the properties covered by award nos. 47/77, 48/77, 111/77, 61/78 and 121/98. Even as I approve Ext.P6 and decline the relied sought for by the petitioner, I dispose of the writ petition issuing the following directions: If any application submitted by the petitioner for re-determination of the compensation payable to her in respect of the properties covered WPC.No.17842/07 4 by 47/77, 48/77, 111/77, 61/78 and 121/98 are even now pending with the Land Acquisition Officer, the Land Acquisition Officer will dispose of those applications in accordance with law at the earliest and at any rate within three months of receiving copy of this judgment and communicate the decision to the petitioner. Even if the petitioner's application under Section 28 A in respect of award nos. 47/77, 48/77, 111/77, 61/78 and 121/98 have been decided against the petitioner, then also the decision should be communicated to the petitioner. If the records of the Land Acquisition Officer do not reveal that the petitioner has not filed any application under Section 28 A in respect of the properties covered by 47/77, 48/77, 111/77, 61/78 and 121/98, then also the Land Acquisition Officer should inform the petitioner regarding the same. Needful in obedience to the above directions should be done by the Land Acquisition Officer at the earliest and at any rate within three months of receiving copy of this judgment. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No.17842/07 5