IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2008 / 7TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 26026 of 2008(W) -------------------------- LAR.55/2001 of SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ N.MADHAVAN, ONAMPALLIL HOUSE, PALLANA, THRIKKUNNAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 2. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR ( GENEAL) ALAPPUZHA. BY G.P. SRI.BENNY VARGHESE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,J. ------------------------ W.P.(C)No.26026 of 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Under challenge in this writ petition is Ext.P7 order of the Land Acquisition Officer rejecting an application under Section 28 (A) filed by the petitioner. The petitioner applied under Section 28A on the basis of Ext.P5 judgment in L.A.R. No.55/2001 of the same court court. Obviously, L.A.R.55/2001 pertains to the acquisition of another item of property pursuant to the very same notification under Section 4 (1) on the basis of which the petitioner's property was acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer, however, did not become inclined to entertain Ext.P6 application on the reason that the property, which was subject matter of Ext.P5, and the petitioner's property were included in two different categories though covered by very same section 4 (1) notification. It appears to me that the principles laid down by this court in Raghava Poduval v. Special Tahsildar ( 2004 (3) KLT 261) have not been noticed by the Tahsildar. The enquiry on an application under Section 28A will be confined to WPC.No.26026/2008 2 the question whether the property of the applicant and the property which is subject matter of the judgment relied on were acquired under the very same notification and also whether there was a reference under section 18 at the instance of the applicant. It has been held that once it is seen that those two conditions are satisfied, the land acquisition officer can award reasonable proportionate enhancement or reduction upon the land value given to the parties in the judgment depending on the category and the ratio maintained by the land acquisition officer regarding the category of the petitioner's property and the category of the property which was subject matter of the judgment relied on. 2. Under the above circumstances, I quash Ext.P7 and direct the land acquisition officer to reconsider Ext.P6 in the light of the principles laid down in Raghava Poduval's case (supra). The learned Government pleader submits that Ext.P5 judgment relied on has not attained finality and that the same is pending in appeal before this court. Pendency of the appeal against the judgment relied on could not be a good ground for rejecting the application straight away. What the land acquisition officer is expected to do under such situation is to direct the applicant to WPC.No.26026/2008 3 produce copy of the appellate judgment and take a final decision on the application under Section 28A on the basis of the appellate judgment. Therefore, the land acquisition officer is directed to keep Ext.P6 pending till such time as the petitioner produces copy of the judgment in the appeal preferred by the Government against Ext.P5. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE) dpk