IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2009 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1931 LA.App..No. 600 of 2001() ------------------------- ( LAR.NO.39/98 OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, PAYYANNUR) APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER -------------- THEKKADAVAN LAKSHMI AMMA W/O LATE P.K.KRISHNAN NAIR RAMANTHALI AMSOM DESOM RAMANTHALI BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT --------------- THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A.) KANNUR BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A .No.600 OF 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. The only question which arises in this appeal is whether in a reference under Section 28 A(3), the claimant can be awarded enhanced compensation towards value of improvements which existed on his property. This court by judgment in Kamalakshy Amma v. Spl.Tahsildar ( 2004(2) KLT 716) has laid that in proceedings under Section 28 A (3) what is contemplated is a redetermination of the value of the land which was acquired on the basis of a court award passed in respect of acquisition of another land pursuant to the very same Section 4(1) notification. The Supreme Court has also held that the legislative intendment underlying under Section 28A is to ensure that those poor and inarticulate persons who could not apply for regular reference under Section 28 also receives the same value as has been finally determined by the court to be due for properties treated similar in value by the land acquisition officer under his original award. In the instant LAA.No.600/01 2 case it was a reference under Section 28 A (3). The appellant relied on the court award in a particular case which was in respect of acquisition for the same purpose and pursuant to the same Section 4(1) notification. The reference court redetermined the value of land, but did not award any enhancement towards value of structures. The grievance of the appellant as submitted by Sri.Paulose, learned counsel for him, is that though very valuable improvements existed on the acquired property, absolutely no enhancement was given towards value of improvements. We are of the view that Section 28 A has nothing to do with enhancement or redetermination of value of improvements which existed on the acquired property. Section 28 can deal only with redetermination of the land value. We do not find any reason to defer from the view taken by this court in Kamalakshy Amma v. Spl.Tahsildar ( 2004(2) KLT 716). The appeal will stand dismissed. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. LAA.No.600/01 2