IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 748 of 2010()
1. KODIYATH KIZHAKKEVEETTIL LAKSHMI AMMA &
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LA), KANNUR
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.SASINDRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :21/07/2010
O R D E R
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