IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2008 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 3589 of 2008(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ KUNNATHODI NARAYANAN, S/O. CHERIYA AMMA, EDANAD, P.O.EDAT, KUNHIMANGALAM VILLAGE, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE SRI.M.M.ANTO RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION (NH), KANNUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANTH BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 3589 of 2008 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of May , 2008 JUDGMENT There appears to be some genuineness in the grievance voiced by the petitioner. The grievance is that the Land Acquisition Officer has not considered the application submitted by him under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act for re-determination of the compensation which was awarded to him for his acquired properties. Ext.P3 is the application under Section 28A in question. Ext.P3 was rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer by Ext.P9 on the ground that while receiving award amount the petitioner had not lodged any protest. In fact in Ext.P9 the Land Acquisition Officer relied on the judgment of this court in State of Kerala v. Kumaran Nair (2001 (1) KLT 539). Pointing out that, the judgment in 2001 (1) KLT 539 has been overruled by a Full Bench in Krishnn Kutty v. The Special Tahsildar (2003 (3) KLT 705 (FB) the petitioner filed another application before the Land Acquisition Officer for reconsideration of the matter. Even that application was rejected by Ext.P16. According to Ext.P16 though the Full Bench has overruled the judgment in WPC No.3589/2008 2 Kumaran's case(supra), the Full Bench judgment can only be prospective in effect. I am afraid that the Land Acquisition Officer was in error. When the Full Bench declares the law, the declaration is regarding the applicable law. The crux question is whether the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 28A is liable to be entertained and disposed of on merits though the petitioner had not lodged protest while receiving the award amount. In the light of the judgment of the Full Bench that question has to be answered in the positive. The result is that the writ petition succeeds. I quash Exts.P9 and P16 and direct the Land Acquisition Officer the first respondent to reconsider Ext.P3 and pass fresh orders applying principles laid down by the Full Bench in Krishnan Kutty v. The Special Tahsildar (2003 (3) KLT 705 (FB). Needful in the above regard shall be done by the Land Acquisition Officer at the earliest and at any rate within three months of receiving a copy of this judgment. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE dpk WPC No.3589/2008 3