IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2008 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 37140 of 2004(U) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. DAMODARAN PILLAI PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, KANDANAD CHIRAYIL, KOMANA MURI, AMBALAPUZHA VILLAGE. 2. PARUKUTTY AMMA, W/O.DAMODARAN PILLAI PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, KANDANAD CHIRAYIL, KOMANA MURI, AMBALAPUZHA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 2.THE SPECIAL DEPUTY THAHASILDAR, LA(GENERAL), ALAPPUZHA. BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER MR.BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX(WPC 37140/04) PETITIONERS' EXTS.: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE REFERENCE APPLICATION MADE BY THE PETITIONERS DATED 11.3.1987. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25.8.2003. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 13.2.2004. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 1.4.2004. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27.4.2004. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 37140 of 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 3rd December, 2008 JUDGMENT Under challenge in this Writ Petition is Ext.P6 order by which the petitioners application for reference of the question of the correct compensation payable to them under Section 28A has been rejected on the ground of limitation. It is true that the period of limitation which is applicable to applications under Section 18 is applicable to applications for reference under Section 28A(3) also. But it is seen from Ext.P2 that the reason on which the original application under Section 28A was dismissed by the Land Acquisition Officer was not a valid reason in view of the judgment of this court in Raghava Poduval v. Special Tahsildar (2004(3) KLT 261). In that judgment, it has been held by this court that to maintain an application under Section 28A, the statutory requirements are only that the original award passed in favour of the applicant as well as the award passed by the officer in favour of the party to the judgment which is relied on by the applicant should have been covered by the very same Section 4(1) notification and it is not necessary that both the parties should have been given the same rate of land value by the awarding officer. It appears to me that the principles laid down by this court in W.P.C.No.37140/04 - 2 - Raghava Poduval v. Special Tahsildar (supra) were not kept in mind by the Land Acquisition Officer while passing Ext.P2. I therefore quash Exts.P2 and P6 and direct the 2nd respondent to reconsider the original application under Section 28A which is referred to in Exts.P2 and P6 and take a fresh decision on the same after hearing the petitioners within two months of receiving copy of this judgment. While taking decision as directed above, the principles laid down by this court in Raghava Poduval v. Special Tahsildar (supra) will be kept in mind by the 2nd respondent. The petitioners will furnish copy of the judgment in Raghava Poduval v. Special Tahsildar (supra) along with a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE