IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 1329 of 2010()
1. K.P.VIJAYAKUMAR,
... Petitioner
2. K.P.SANKARAN NAIR, -DO-
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice N.K.BALAKRISHNAN
Dated :04/01/2011
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
N. K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
------------------------------------------------
L. A. A. No.1329 of 2010
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of January, 2011
JUDGMENT
Pius C. Kuriakose, J
The appellants who were claimants before the
Reference Court in a reference under Section 28A(3) are
aggrieved in that, the learned Subordinate Judge refused to
place reliance on the judgment in LAR.123/87, a copy of
which was produced by the appellants in the enquiry
conducted by the Reference Court. The properties belonging
to the appellants situated in Sasthamcotta village of Kollam
District was acquired for the construction of Chavara branch
canal of Kallada Irrigation Project pursuant to Section 4(1)
notification published on 15/01/83. They were awarded land
value at the rate of Rs.4,197/- per Are as against a claim of
Rs.34,580/- per Are. The appellants, however, did not seek
L. A. A. No.1329 of 2010 -2-
a reference under Section 18. However, on coming to know
that enhanced compensation has been awarded by the
Reference Court to the claimant in LAR.20/92 whose
properties had been acquired for the same purpose pursuant
to the same notification, he filed an application under
Section 28A for redetermination of the compensation
payable to him on the basis of the court award in
LAR.20/92. The Land Acquisition Officer allowed the above
application and awarded him enhanced compensation at the
rates fixed by the Reference Court under its judgment in
LAR.20/92. Being not satisfied with the above award, the
appellant sought for a reference under Section 28A(3) which
was favourably considered. In the enquiry held by the court
in the 28A(3) Reference, the appellant relied on another
court award in LAR.123/1987. Under the above award rates
higher than the rates awarded under LAR.20/92 had been
awarded to the party thereto. The learned Subordinate
L. A. A. No.1329 of 2010 -3-
Judge did not become inclined to place any reliance on the
award in LAR.123/1987. According to the court, the
appellant who had relied on the court award in LAR.20/92 is
not justified in seeking enhancement higher than what had
been awarded to the party in LAR.20/92. It was also noticed
incidentally by the learned Subordinate Judge that the
acquisition covered by LAR.123/87 was pursuant to a
different notification under Section 4(1).
2. In this appeal various grounds are raised challenging
the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge.
Sri.B.Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellants
addressed arguments on the basis of those grounds. He
placed strong reliance on the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Ramakrishna Rao v. Singareni Collieries Com. Ltd.
(2010(4) KLT 255 SC). According to the learned Counsel,
the above judgment is authority for the proposition that a
claimant in a reference under Section 28A(3) can be
L. A. A. No.1329 of 2010 -4-
awarded higher compensation than what was awarded to
the party to the judgment relied on by him in his application
under Section 28A. Smt.Latha T. Thankappan, the learned
Senior Government would oppose the submission of
Sri.Suresh Kumar. She would submit that the Supreme
Court does not lay down the proposition canvassed by the
learned counsel for the appellant by its judgment in
Ramakrishna Rao v. Singareni Collieries Com. Ltd. (2010(4)
KLT 255 SC). She submitted further that at any rate, the
judgment in LAR.123/87 cannot have any relevance as the
above judgment pertains to acquisition pursuant to an
entirely different notification.
3. We have considered the submissions addressed at
the Bar. We are not in a position to accept the argument of
Sri.Suresh Kumar that the judgment of the Supreme Court
in Ramakrishna Rao’s case (cited supra) is authority for the
proposition that in a reference under Section 28A(3), the
L. A. A. No.1329 of 2010 -5-
claimant can be awarded compensation higher than what
had been awarded to the party to the judgment relied on by
the claimant in his application under Section 28A. On going
through the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Ramakrishna Rao’s case (cited supra) what we find is that
their Lordships were essentially considering the question
whether a person whose application under Section 28A had
been favourably considered by the Land Acquisition Officer
and who had been granted the benefit of higher
compensation is an aggrieved party entitled to seek a
reference under Section 28A(3). It is that question which is
answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. Their
Lordships of the Supreme Court, however, have cautiously
observed in paragraph 11 of the judgment that the
Reference Court considering the Reference under Section
28A(3) “will have to bear in mind that a person who has not
sought for the reference under Section 18 cannot get
L. A. A. No.1329 of 2010 -6-
compensation higher than the one payable to those who had
sought reference under that Section”. A survey of various
judicial precedents governing Section 28A will reveal that
the legislative intentment underlying the above provision is
to give relief to an illiterate and inarticulate person who had
omitted to invoke the provision for reference under Section
18 and thereby to ensure that there is a parity in the
compensation which is ultimately received by persons whose
properties were acquired for a public purpose pursuant to
the very same notification. We do not think that it has ever
been in the intention of the legislature to confer more
benefits upon such illiterate and inarticulate persons than
those persons who acted promptly and sought for reference
under Section 18. If the argument of Sri.Suresh Kumar is
accepted, the same will amount to conferring more benefits
on the appellants than what had been given to the party in
LAR.20/92 on the basis of which only the appellant could file
L. A. A. No.1329 of 2010 -7-
his application under Section 28A. We do not find any
illegality or infirmity about the view taken by the learned
Subordinate Judge. Appeal fails and will stand dismissed in
limine.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
N. K. BALAKRISHNAN
JUDGE
kns/-