IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2008 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 4539 of 2007(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ YESODA, PANIKKARUVEETTIL, ANNOOR P.O., VIA.PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) NAVAL ACCADEMY, RAMANTHALI, P.O.PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. PADMANABHAN NAIR ,J. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.4539 of 2007 ------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 22nd day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT This Writ Petition is filed challenging Ext.P2 order passed by the Land Acquisition Officer rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. 0.4087 hectares of land belonging to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner was acquired for a public purpose. At the time of award enquiry petitioner did not opt for land value but the compensation due to her was calculated based on the improvements effected in the property. So compensation was awarded to the petitioner considering the standing space of yielding trees which was higher than the land value awardable at that point of time. Petitioner did not file application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Some of the other land owners whose lands were acquired filed applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for referring the matter for enhancement in the compensation. In L.A.R.No.184/1987 Sub Court, Payyannur enhanced the land value awarded. Petitioner filed application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act on 24.3.1993 which was rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer on 18.6.2003. Subsequently on the basis of judgment in L.A.R.No.120/1987 petitioner filed Ext.P1 application on 11.5.1998. Same was dismissed on 3.10.2006 stating two reasons. First reason was that her earlier application was WP(C)No.4539/2007 2 dismissed and second reason was that she was not awarded land value but compensation awarded taking into account the standing space between yielding trees. Challenging that order this Writ Petition is filed. 3. At present the case of the petitioner is that in L.A.R.No.120/1987 also compensation was calculated taking into account the fact that standing space between yielding trees. The mode of calculation adopted in L.A.R.No.120/1987 and in the case of the petitioner are entirely different. After having opted for a different mode of calculation petitioner cannot be allowed to deviate to another mode of calculation to claim additional compensation. So no merit in this Writ Petition and the same is only to be dismissed. In the result, Writ Petition is dismissed. K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE. cks