IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2008 / 22ND SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 24465 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ THAYYIL ABDULLA KUNHI, S/O.ASSINAR, KOVVAPRAM, KUNHIMANGALAM, CHERUTHAZHAM VILLAGE, EZHILODE POST, KANNUR TALUK. REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER M.K.SEKHARAN, S/O.KUNHIKANNAN, P.O.EZHILODE, KANNUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 2. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION (N.H.), KANNUR. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.24465 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 13th August, 2008 JUDGMENT Mr.Basant Balaji, Senior Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondents. I have heard Mr.V.N.Ramesan Nambisan, counsel for the petitioner and the Senior Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents. 2. Under challenge is Ext.P4 order of the Land Acquisition Officer rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 28A. It is seen from Ext.P4 that the only reason on the basis of which the application is rejected is that the petitioner had not lodged any protest at the time of receiving original compensation. It appears to me that the Land Acquisition Officer had the judgment of this court in State of Kerala v. Kumaran Nair (2001(1) KLJ 343) in his mind. But that judgment is no longer good law and the Supreme Court has already laid down in Babuua Ram v. State of U.P. [(1995) 2 SCC 689] that to maintain an application under Section 28A, it is not necessary that the original compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer should have been received by the party with protest. What is necessary is only that the acquisition in question as well as the acquisition covered by the judgment relied on should have W.P.C.No.24465/08 - 2 - been pursuant to the very same Section 4(1) notification and also that the applicant had not sought for a reference under Section 18. Since it is seen in this case that both the above conditions are satisfied, the Land Acquisition Officer should not have rejected the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 28A on the ground that there was no protest at the time of receiving compensation. The result is that I quash Ext.P4 and direct the Land Acquisition Officer to reconsider the application under Section 28A filed by the petitioner, conduct necessary enquiries into the same and take a decision on merits on the basis of the enquiry. Award pursuant to the decision shall be passed by the Land Acquisition Officer at the earliest and at any rate within two months of receiving copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is allowed as above. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE