IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2008 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 9337 of 2008(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ THAZHATH PURAYIL KARTHIAYANI, AGED 75 YEARS, D/O AMBU, EDAT P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR [L.A.]., NATIONAL HIGHWAY, KANNUR. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BASANTH BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).No.9337 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT It appears to me that petitioner is voicing a genuine grievance. The application submitted by them under Section 28 A of the Land Acquisition Act was rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer by Ext.P2 on the ground that the application cannot be entertained since the property acquired from the petitioner's possession and the property which was the subject matter of the court's judgment relied on belong to two different categories. In my opinion the Land Acquisition Officer was in error since it has been held by this court in Raghava Poduval v. Special Tahsildar (2004(3)KLT 261) that for successfully maintaining an application under Section 28A what is required is that the property acquired from the petitioner and the property which was the subject matter of the court judgment relied on were covered by the very same 4(1) notification and it is not necessary that the awarding officer should have categorised both the properties in the same category or should have awarded the same price for both the properties. The petitioner WPC.No.9337/08 2 being aggrieved by Ext.P2 filed Ext.P3 application under Section 28 A (3) seeking a reference of the court. The awarding officer rejected that application by Ext.P4. 2. The stand of the awarding officer is too technical to receive acceptance. The legislative intentment underlying Section 28A should have been kept in mind by the awarding officer. Under the above circumstances, I am of the view that the original 28A application filed by the petitioner-Ext.P1 should be construed by the Land Acquisition Officer as an application filed by the petitioner and all her children- the co-awardees and should be re-considered in the light of the judgment in Raghava Poduval v. Special Tahsildar (2004(3)KLT 261). Accordingly allowing this writ petition I quash Exts.P2 and P4 and direct the second respondent to re-consider Ext.P1, construe Ext.P1 to be an application submitted not only by the petitioner but also by all her children and dispose of Ext.P1 in accordance with law at the earliest and at any rate within three months of receiving copy of this judgment. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No.9337/08 2