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 30TH JULY 2009 / 8TH SRAVANA 1931 LA.App..No. 202 of 2004() ------------------------- LAR.233/2001 of SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER: -------------------------------- CHUNNAMBI SANKARAN, S/O. O. AMBU, RAMANTHALI AMSOM DESOM, P.O. RAMANTHALI. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------- THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) KANNUR. SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P. Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.202 of 2004 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J Under challenge in this appeal preferred by the claimant is the award of the Reference Court dismissing reference under Section 28A(3) on the reason that the property covered by Ext.A1 judgment produced by the claimant/appellant and the property under acquisition are not similar or similarly situated. At first blush, it would appear as though the learned Subordinate Judge did not keep in mind the principles laid down by this Court in Raghava Poduval v. Special Tahsildar (2004(3) KLT, 261). But, as rightly submitted by Sri.Basant Balaji, Senior Government Pleader it was not on Ext.A1 that the appellant relied L. A. A. No.202 of 2004 -2- on in his original application under Section 28A. In that application, he relied on the judgment in L.A.R.97/92, but under that judgment no enhanced land value was granted by the Reference Court. It was only the improvement value by way of enhancement which has been granted by the Reference Court. Thus, we are of the view that the Land Acquisition Officer was justified in rejecting the original application under Section 28A filed by the appellant on the basis of the judgment in LAR.97/92. The view of the learned Subordinate Judge is also justifiable since it was not on the basis of Ext.A1 that the appellant had made the original application under Section 28A. We are of the view that since the application under Section 28A was rightly rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer, it is open to the appellant to file a fresh application under L. A. A. No.202 of 2004 -3- Section 28A relying on Ext.A1 judgment in LAR.120/1987. We permit the appellant to file a fresh application under Section 28A based on the above judgment. 2. It is made clear that for the purpose of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the time during which the application which was filed by the appellant on the basis of LAR.97/92 was pending before the Land Acquisition Officer and the time thereafter till 17th of August, 2009 will be excluded from reckoning the limitation of the fresh application to be filed by the appellant. 3. However, since the Government cannot be blamed for the delay which has been caused in the matter, we make it clear that from the date of the original award of the Land Acquisition Officer till the L. A. A. No.202 of 2004 -4- filing of the fresh application under Section 28A, compensation if any, re-determined by the Land Acquisition Officer considering the appellant's prospective application under Section 28A, will not carry interest otherwise admissible under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. In other words, the appellant will be eligible for other statutory benefits such as those under Section 23(2) and Section 23(1)A. The appellant shall file fresh application under Section 28A within three weeks from today. 4. This appeal is allowed to the above extent. No costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE P. Q. BARKATH ALI JUDGE kns/-