IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2009 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1931 LA.App..No. 1284 of 2000(A) --------------------------- LAR.302/1997 of PRL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT -------------- THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, (LA), N.H.NO.1 KOZHIKODE BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS --------------- 1. PARAKKANDY JANAKI @ MALUKUTTY, NR. GOVT. COLLEGE OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION, EAST HILL P.O. WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE 2. PARAKKANDY BALAN, NR. GOVT. COLLEGE OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION, EAST HILL P.O. WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE 3. PARAKKANDY VASU, NR. GOVT. COLLEGE OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION, EAST HILL P.O. WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE 4. PARAKKANDY BALAN, NR. GOVT. COLLEGE OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION, EAST HILL P.O. WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE 5. PARAKKANDY KARUNAKARAN NR. GOVT. COLLEGE OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION, EAST HILL P.O. WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE 6. PARAKKANDY MAHESH NR. GOVT. COLLEGE OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION, EAST HILL P.O. WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE ADV. SRI.A.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.PRABHA R.MENON SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR(MOHANKUMAR ASSOCIATES SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.No.1284 OF 2000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. The judgment impugned in this appeal preferred by the government is passed by the reference court in a reference under Section 28 A (3) of the Land Acquisition Act. An application under Section 28A was filed by the respondent on the basis of Ext.A1 judgment pertaining to acquisition of another piece of land pursuant to the very same Section 4(1) notification. Ext.A1 document was certainly a relevant judgment for the purpose of any application under Section 28A. But it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the issue which prominently arose before the reference court was whether the application under Section 28 was filed by the respondent on time. On going through the judgment, it seems that this issue was never brought to the attention of the learned Subordinate Judge. But then, when the application under Section 28A itself was rejected on the ground of limitation, the learned Subordinate Judge should have addressed this issue and entered his findings. There is another aspect for the matter. Ext.A1 we are informed was set aside by this court in appeal - LAA.No.1284/2000 2 L.A.A.No.442/1992 and remanded the LAR back to the court below . Under the above circumstances, we are inclined to set aside the impugned judgment and remand the matter back to the reference court for considering the question of limitation and also to consider as to what is the rate to be finally awarded by the reference court pursuant to the order of remand in the above case. The result therefore is that the appeal will stand allowed. The impugned judgment and decree are set aside and the LAR is remanded to the reference court. That court will consider whether the application under Section 28 A filed by the respondent was valid i.e. whether it was filed within the statutory time limit and will also consider as to what is the rate finally awarded by the reference court to the party in Ext.A1 and pass a revised judgment. Revised judgment as directed above shall be passed at the earliest and at any rate within six months of receiving copy of this judgment. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. LAA.No.1284/2000 3 LAA.No.1284/2000 4