IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2010 / 30TH ASHADHA 1932 LA.App..No. 748 of 2010() ------------------------- LAR.137/1998 of SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... APPELLANT(S)PETITIONER: -------------- 1. KODIYATH KIZHAKKEVEETTIL LAKSHMI AMMA RAMANTHALI AMSOM, DESOM RAMANTHALI. 2. KODIYATH KIZHAKKEVEETTIL DEVAKI AMMA RAMANTHALI AMSOM, DESOM RAMANTHAL. 3. KODIYATH KIZHAKKEVEETTIL YESODA AMMA RAMANTHALI AMSOM, DESOM RAMANTHALI . 4. KODIYATH KIZHAKKEVEETTIL JANARDHANAN RAMANTHALI AMSOM, DESOM RAMANTHALI 5.KODIYATH KIZHAKKEVEETTIL SAVITHRI RAMANTHALI AMSOM, DESOM RAMANTHALI 6. KODIYATH KIZHAKKEVEETTIL BHAVANI RAMANTHALI AMSOM, DESOM RAMANTHALI . BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.V.GIRISHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT: --------------- THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUSITION, KANNUR. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.P.N.SUMANGALA THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No. 748 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 21st day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The claimants, who are aggrieved by the award of the Reference Court granting only land value at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per cent the exact rate that was awarded to the party to the judgment relied on by the appellants in their application under Section 28A, are in appeal. 2. Sri.M.Sasindran, learned counsel for the appellants drew our attention to several subsequent judgments of this Court wherein this Court has approved refixation of land value at Rs.1,500/- per cent. According to the learned counsel, the judgment of this Court in Raghava Poduval v. Special Tahsildar (2004 (3) KLT 261) will enable the Land Acquisition Court considering reference under Section 28A(3) to award more than the rate that was awarded to the party to the judgment relied on in the application under Section 28A. The learned counsel referred to the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Balram and Another (2010) 5 Supreme Court Cases L.A.A.No.748/2010 2 747) also in support of the above proposition. 3. We have considered the submissions of Sri.M.Sasindran. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Balram and another (cited supra) does not support the proposition advanced by the learned counsel. The above judgment only reiterates the settled position that identical and similar lands should be awarded the same land value by the Reference Court and the High Court in appeal. Here the appellants were not persons who were sought for reference under Section 18. They applied for redetermination under Section 28A(3) relying on the judgment in L.A.R. No.186/1987. Importantly, the properties of the appellants and the properties of the party to L.A.R. No.186/1987 were treated as identical properties by the Land Acquisition Officer, who awarded the same rate for both these properties. 4. The prayer of the appellants in the application under Section 28A(3) was that the market value of their properties be redetermined based on the judgment in L.A.R. No.186/1987. That prayer was granted in full by the Land Acquisition Officer. But, in the meanwhile, the Reference Court had passed L.A.A.No.748/2010 3 subsequent awards granting higher value ranging between Rs.1500/- to 2000/- for similar properties. The appellants by seeking reference under Section 28A(3) sought to have the value of their properties also refixed on the basis of such subsequent judgments. It is that endeavor which was not allowed by the Land Acquisition Court. According to us, allowing the appellants to rely on such subsequent judgments will be conferring on them benefits more than what had been received by the party in L.A.R. No. 186/1987. Redetermination contemplated under Section 28A(3) is redetermination mainly on the basis of Court Judgment. The Court judgment relied on in this case was the judgment in LAR 186/1987. Such redetermination having been granted, the appellants cannot have any legitimate grievance. In the above view of the matter, we dismiss the appeal without any order as to costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE dpk