IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 10405 of 2008(L)
1. MOUVANAL JANAKI,
... Petitioner
2. MOUVANAL PREETHI,
3. MOUVANAL GEETHA,
4. MOUVANAL SHEEJA,
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR.
... Respondent
2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA),
For Petitioner :SRI.SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :21/05/2008
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No.10405 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated: 21st May, 2008
JUDGMENT
The grievance voiced by the petitioners is that the 2nd
respondent while passing Ext.P1 award on the application under
Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act submitted by them did not
grant them the statutory interest due on the market value and the
solatium awarded to them under Ext.P1 award. Claiming interest the
1st petitioner submitted Ext.P2 application. The learned Government
Pleader submits that during the pendency of the Writ Petition, Ext.P2
was rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer on 8.3.2008 on the
reason that the Land Acquisition Officer has no power to modify
awards passed by him under Section 28A.
2. The issue as to whether a person in whose favour award is
passed under Section 28A is entitled for interest under Section 34 on
the enhanced amount awarded is no longer res integra.
Koruthukochukutty v. State of Kerala (2000(1) KLT 26) authored
by G.Sasidharan,J. and Kallianikutty Amma v. The Special
Tahsildar(LA) (2003(1) KLT 1014) authored by J.B.Koshy,J. are
decisions which lay down clearly that an awardee under Section 28A
will be entitled for statutory interest also on the redetermined market
W.P.C.No.10405/08 – 2 –
value. The petitioners are yet to produce a copy of the award passed
by the 2nd respondent rejecting Ext.P2 application. However, in view
of the legal position settled as it is by two decisions of this court, I am
of the view that there is justification for directing the 2nd respondent
to reconsider Ext.P2 application submitted by the petitioners in the
light of the decisions referred to above notwithstanding the order
dated 8.3.2008 rejecting Ext.P2. Accordingly, the Writ Petition will
stand allowed issuing the following directions:
The order dated 8.3.2008 passed by the 2nd respondent
rejecting Ext.P2 is quashed and the 2nd respondent is directed to
reconsider Ext.P2 in the light of the principles laid down by this court
in the decisions referred to above after affording hearing opportunity
to the petitioners and pass fresh orders. Fresh orders as directed
above shall be passed by the 2nd respondent at the earliest and at any
rate within three months of receiving copy of the judgment.
srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE