IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 5TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 14TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 24655 of 2008(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, S/O PARAMESWARA KURUP, KIZHAKKADATH, THEKKE MURI, VALLIKUNNAM. 2. ANANDAVALLY, VELLAYISSERIL VEEDU, MANAPPALLY NORTH MURI, MANAPALLY. 3. NEELAKANTAN NANU, VATTATHATHU VEEDU, KARAZMA MURI, VALLIKUNNAM. 4. SARASWATHI AMMA, MARANGATTU THEKKATHIL, KARANMA MURI, VALLIKUNNAM. BY ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR, L.A.K.I.P NO. II, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY G.P. SRI.BASANTH BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,J. ------------------------ W.P.(C)No.24655 of 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of September , 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioners challenge Exts.P3 to P3(c) issued by the third respondent – land acquisition officer rejecting separate applications under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act filed by them seeking redetermination of compensation payable for their acquired properties on the basis of Ext.P1 court award. On going through Exts.P3 to P3(c) , it is seen that the reason on which applications have been rejected is that the properties are not similar or similarly situated. It is not disputed by the learned Government Pleader that the acquired properties as well as the properties covered by Ext.P1 judgment were acquired under the very same section 4 (1) notification. It is seen that Ext.P1 properties are dry lands. While the properties of petitioners 1 and 2 were wet lands and properties of the petitioners 3 and 4 ,though dry lands, were situated five kilometres away from the properties covered by Ext.P1. Whatever that be, all these properties were acquired pursuant to WPC.No.24655/2008 2 very same section 4 (1) notification and that the land acquisition officer would have maintain a ratio between the values of the acquired property and the properties covered by Ext.P1 for the purpose of original award. The same ratio ought to be maintained while redetermining the compensation. The insistence of the third respondent that the petitioners should have been awarded the same value as the properties covered by Ext.P1 is not justified. The issue, in my opinion, is covered by the judgment of this court in Raghava Poduval v. Special Tahsildar (2004 (3) KLT 261) . I therefore quash Ext.P3 to P3(c) and direct the third respondent to reconsider the applications Exts.P2 to P2 (c) filed by the petitioners afresh and pass revised judgment keeping in mind the principles laid down by this court in Raghava Poduval's case (supra). Needful in compliance with the above direction will be done by the third respondent at the earliest and at any rate within two months of receiving a copy of this judgment. (PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE) dpk