IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2010 / 13TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 26059 of 2009(B) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ KARTHYAYANI AMMA K.P., AGED 74 YEARS, W/O.THE LATE K.P.NARAYANAN NAIR, KODIYATH PADINHARE VEEDU, KANKOLPURAM, KANKOL P.O., VIA-PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.SHAMEENA SALAHUDHEEN, SRI.K.N.VIKRAMATHITHYAN PILLAI. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), EZHIMALA NAVAL ACADEMY, PAYYANNUR-670 307, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KANNUR-670 001. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.K.R. DEEPA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 26059 of 2009-B - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner's properties have been acquired for the purpose of Ezhimala Naval Academy. According to the petitioner, a total extent of 2.30 acres of land in R.S. No.236/1A 1A 1A of Ramanthali Village have been acquired. The petitioner filed an application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act for re-determination of the compensation. Initially, it was rejected as per Ext.P2 Exts.P2(a) and P2(b) stating that “ on verification of the revenue records, no land was acquired from the applicant in the survey number referred.” It is the case of the petitioner that there was some mistake in the survey numbers given in the application. Therefore the petitioner filed fresh applications as per Exts.P3 and P4 which were rejected as per Exts.P5 and P6 orders. A reading of the above orders show that the reason stated therein is that the application for the redetermination of compensation under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act should be made only on the basis of judgment of reference court under Section 18 of the Act. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the wpc 26059/2009 2 issue is covered in favour of the petitioner by a decision of this Court in Joseph v. District Collector (2004 (2) KLT 1029) wherein it was held that the award of court for the purpose of an application under Section 28A(1) can include an award made by the court in a reference case registered under Section 28A(3) also. Therein, this Court after considering various aspects, held thus: “On a literal interpretation of the expression “award of the Court” employed in S.28A, according to me all awards of the Court under which excess compensation has been awarded by the Court over and above the original compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector and are passed under Part III of the land Acquisition Act are included. S.28-A(3) enables a party as does S.18 to seek a reference to the Court for determination of the question of correct compensation. The award of the Court whether it be on a reference under S.18 or it be on a reference under S.28-A(3) is passed in terms of S.26. The provisions of Ss.18 to 28 have been made applicable to references under S.28-A(3) as they apply to reference under S.18, of course “so far as may be”. In my view the distinction can lie only in that, the Court considering a reference received under S.28-A(3) will be concerned with enhanced compensation by way of land value and incidental statutory benefits alone, while the Court dealing with a reference under S.18 will also be concerned with the claims of the owner for enhanced value for buildings and other improvements. Considerations under S.23 which do not have anything to do with wpc 26059/2009 3 claim for land value may not be relevant on reference under S.28A (3). But as far as claims under S.28-A which are always for equal land value for similar lands covered by the very same 4(1) notification are concerned there cannot be any difference between the awards passed on a reference made under Ss.18 and 28-A(3). If the legislature wanted to include only the award passed in a reference under S.18, the legislature would certainly have specifically referred to awards passed on a reference under S.18(1). Instead the legislature clearly referred to “awards passed under Part III of the statute” which takes in awards passed in references under S.18 as well as under S.28-A(3). Both of them are expected to be given in terms of S.26 and as far as the land value payable is concerned are expected to have the same characteristics.” 3. In the light of the above, the orders passed by the authorities as per Exts.P5 and P6 cannot be supported. They are accordingly quashed. There will be a direction to the first respondent to reconsider the applications of the petitioner on merits and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/