Vaikath Puthiyaveettil Ramesan vs The Special Tahsildar (L.A) on 9 July, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

LA.App..No. 481 of 2004()


1. VAIKATH PUTHIYAVEETTIL RAMESAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A),
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI

 Dated :09/07/2009

 O R D E R
          PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
                      ------------------------
                     L.A.A.No.481 OF 2004
                      ------------------------

               Dated this the 9th day of July, 2009

                            JUDGMENT

Pius C.Kuriakose, J.

The claimant in a reference under Section 28A(3) of the

Land Acquisition Act, being aggrieved by the rejection of the

reference by the reference court, has preferred this appeal. One

of the grounds on which the reference was rejected by the

reference court is that it was without protest, that the original

compensation awarded by the land acquisition officer was

received by the appellant claimant. It is very clear to our mind

that the reference court was in error in insisting that for

reference under Section 28A(3), or for that matter, an

application under Section 28A is answered favourably and

compensation is redetermined on the basis of the court

judgment relied on, the claimant should have received the

original compensation under protest. In fact, Section 28A is for

such claimants who failed to make proper application for

reference under Section 18, for which only it is obligatory that

the receipt of the original compensation should have been under

protest. The issue is no longer res integra and is covered in

favour of the appellant claimant by several judgments of the

Supreme Court including the judgment in Babu Ram v. State of

U.P.(1995 (2) SCC 689) & Union of India v. Hansoli Devi (2002

(7) SCC 273).

3. The result is that the judgment under appeal is set aside

and the LAR is remanded to the Subordinate Judge’s court

Payannur. That court is directed to answer the reference on

the basis of the evidence which has already come on record at

the earliest and at any rate within three months of receiving a

copy of this judgment.

Refund the full court fee paid on the appeal memorandum

to Sri.Ramesan Nambisan, learned counsel for the appellant.

PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE

P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE
dpk