IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2008 / 23RD ASHADHA 1930 LA.App..No. 160 of 2007(D) -------------------------- LAR.231/2001 of SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... APPELLANT: CLAIMANT. -------------------- THRESSIAMMA MANNARTHARA, D/O.LATE MARIYAM, MANNARATHARA, P.O.EDAPPUZHA VIA, PAVAM, IRITTY. BY ADV. SRI.SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT. ------------------------ THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION, KANNUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER sSRI.BASANTH BALAJI THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- L.A.A. NO. 160 of 2007 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of July , 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the award of the reference court in a Reference under Section 28A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioner's property having an extent of 1.1585 Hectares of land in Ramanthali Amsom and Desom was acquired for the purpose of establishment of the Naval Academy at Ezhimala . The Land acquisition Officer would fix the land value at the rate of Rs.1152/- per Are. Since the petitioner had not applied for reference under Section 18 on time, she applied under Section 28A seeking redetermination of compensation on the basis of the court award in L.A.R.16/88. Under L.A.R.16/88, which was a case covered by the very same 4 (1) notification and in respect of property which had been treated by the Land Acquisition Officer on a par with the acquired properties of the petitioner for the purpose of determining the original land value, the court re fixed the land value at the rate of Rs.1976/- per L.A.A.160/2007 2 Are. Though the Land Acquisition Officer found that the properties of the petitioner and the properties covered by the judgment in L.A.R. No.16/88 were covered by the very same notification and had been treated alike by the Land Acquisition Officer for the purpose of determination of the land value, the Officer did not grant the same land value as had been given by the court to the claimants in L.A.R.. 16/88. In stead, the land value was re fixed at Rs.1,600/- per are. Being dissatisfied the petitioner applied under Section 28 A (3). That application was favourably considered and thus arose L.A.R. No.231/2001 in which the impugned award was passed. Under the impugned award the court below has confirmed the decision of the Land Acquisition Officer. According to the court below, the Land Acquisition Officer had given some reasons in his award for not granting the rate which had been given by the court to the claimants in L.A.R. No.16/88. It has been repeatedly held by this court and the Apex Court that the legislative objective which underlies Section 28A is to ensure that persons who are treated alike by the Land Acquisition Officer in the matter of land value under the original award should be treated similarly when it L.A.A.160/2007 3 comes for redetermining the correct compensation payaable to them in terms of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. In the impugned judgment, I do not find any reason assigned by the court below to show why the petitioner is not entitled for the land value which had been awarded by the court for the claimants in L.A.R. 16/1988. After all, those claimants and the petitioner had been treated by the Land Acquisition Officer alike for the purpose of determination of the original land value. In fact it is seen that in a subsequent award the reference court in L.A.R. 120/1987 awarded much higher rates than the rates fixed under L.A.R.16/88 for certain parties whose land had been acquired under the very same Section 4 (1) notification. I am of the view that the learned Subordinate Judge should have refixed the land value of the petitioner's acquired property giving the same rate as the rate which had been given to the parties in L.A.R. No.16/88. 3. The result is that appeal will stand allowed. The judgment and decree of the reference court will stand modified to the extent of refixing the value of the petitioner's acquired land at Rs.1976/- per Are. This means that over and above the land L.A.A.160/2007 4 value awarded by the reference court in his award under Section 28A (3) the appellant will be entitled for further amount of Rs.376/- per Are for each Are of her acquired property. It is needless to mention that the appellant will also be entitled for all statutory benefits in terms of Sections 34 & 23 (2) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. The appeal will stand allowed as above. The parties will suffer their respective costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE dpk