{"id":139351,"date":"2009-09-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panachikunnel-annamma-thomas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-29-september-2009-2"},"modified":"2014-06-02T07:24:29","modified_gmt":"2014-06-02T01:54:29","slug":"panachikunnel-annamma-thomas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-29-september-2009-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panachikunnel-annamma-thomas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-29-september-2009-2","title":{"rendered":"Panachikunnel Annamma Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 29 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Panachikunnel Annamma Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 29 September, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 25626 of 2009(W)\n\n\n1. PANACHIKUNNEL ANNAMMA THOMAS,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A.),\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN\n\n Dated :29\/09\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n             THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J\n                   ...........................................\n              WP(C).NOs.25626 & 24875 OF 2009\n                   ............................................\n      DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2009\n\n                               JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
                                                               “C.R.”\n<\/p>\n
1.These writ petitions raise certain issues under the Land<\/p>\n
  Acquisition Act, 1894.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.Sub Court, Payyannaur decided LAR 120 of 1987 on<\/p>\n
  20.3.1990. At the instance of the claimant, this court set aside<\/p>\n
  that award in L.A.A.No.220 of 1992 and remitted that matter<\/p>\n
  for reconsideration, giving the claimants opportunity to amend<\/p>\n
  their pleadings. After the remit, the Sub Court passed an<\/p>\n
  award on 3.9.1997.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.Based on the aforesaid award dated 3.9.1997, hereinafter, the<\/p>\n
  “post-remit award”, for short, the petitioner in WP(C)25626 of<\/p>\n
  2009 filed an application invoking Section 28A(1) of the Act.<\/p>\n
  That request was turned down holding that the application was<\/p>\n
  not filed within a period of three months from the date on<\/p>\n
WPC.25626\/09 & 24875\/09<\/p>\n
                                  2<\/span><\/p>\n
  which the Sub Court issued the award dated 20.3.1990, that is,<\/p>\n
  the award before the appeal to this court.<\/p>\n
4.The petitioner in WP(C) 24875 of 2009 filed an application<\/p>\n
  under Section 28A(1) on the basis of the award in LAR 150 of<\/p>\n
  1987. Thereafter, it appeared to the petitioner that the said<\/p>\n
  application would be time barred. Therefore, another<\/p>\n
  application under Section 28A(1) was filed based on the<\/p>\n
  aforesaid post-remit award in LAR 120 of 1987.            The first<\/p>\n
  application based on the award in LAR 150 of 1987 was<\/p>\n
  rejected as time barred. Later, the application based on the<\/p>\n
  post-remit award in LAR 120 of 1987 was rejected stating that<\/p>\n
  it is barred in view of the rejection of the earlier application.<\/p>\n
5.If I were to go solely by the ground on which the application of<\/p>\n
  the petitioner in WP(C)24875 of 2009 is rejected, it has to be<\/p>\n
  straight away answered by stating that the order is wrong, in<\/p>\n
  as much as a rejection of an earlier application on ground of<\/p>\n
  delay referable to the award relied on in that application is no<\/p>\n
WPC.25626\/09 & 24875\/09<\/p>\n
                                  3<\/span><\/p>\n
  ground for rejecting a later application dependent on a<\/p>\n
  different award. All that has to be ensured is that an<\/p>\n
  application has to be within a period of three months in terms<\/p>\n
  of the proviso to Section 28A(1) based on the award that is<\/p>\n
  relied on for the purpose of that application. This is the settled<\/p>\n
  law.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6.But, a larger question arises for decision in these two writ<\/p>\n
  petitions. It directly arises in WP(C)25626 of 2009, emanating<\/p>\n
  from the decision impugned therein. In so far as WP(C) 24875<\/p>\n
  of 2009 is concerned, it arises in the form of defence by the<\/p>\n
  respondents, as projected by the learned Government Pleader.<\/p>\n
7.The issue that falls for decision arises this way: As already<\/p>\n
  noticed, LAR 120 of 1987 was decided by the reference court<\/p>\n
  on 20.3.1990. That award was set aside by this court and<\/p>\n
  matter remitted. The reference court again decided the case<\/p>\n
  on 3.9.1997. I have called that award as the post-remit award.<\/p>\n
  On these facts, the questions raised are; (1) Whether a post-<\/p>\n
WPC.25626\/09 & 24875\/09<\/p>\n
                                4<\/span><\/p>\n
  remit award could be the basis of an application under Section<\/p>\n
  28A(1)? (2) Whether such an application under Section 28A(1)<\/p>\n
  would stand only if it had been filed within a period of three<\/p>\n
  months from the date of the award that was initially passed by<\/p>\n
  the reference court, which award was set aside in appeal,<\/p>\n
  leading to the post-remit award?\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
8.If the application under Section 28A(1) ought to have been<\/p>\n
  filed from the date on which the reference court passed the<\/p>\n
  award for the first time in LAR 120 of 1987, that is before the<\/p>\n
  order of remit in LAA No.220 of 1992, all the applications<\/p>\n
  which have led to these writ petitions are time barred since<\/p>\n
  that award was passed on 20.3.1990.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
9.Adv. O Ramachandran Nambiar and Adv. Sergi Joseph Thomas,<\/p>\n
  the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these<\/p>\n
  matters, argued that the period of limitation for the purpose of<\/p>\n
  proviso to Section 28A(1) has to be decided on the basis of the<\/p>\n
  award which is made the foundation of the application and<\/p>\n
WPC.25626\/09 & 24875\/09<\/p>\n
                                5<\/span><\/p>\n
 cannot be determined on the basis of any other award.<\/p>\n
 Dilating further, Adv.Nambiar further argued that the cause of<\/p>\n
 action for filing an application under Section 28A(1) is the<\/p>\n
 factum of a person being aggrieved in terms of Section 28A(1)<\/p>\n
 and this would arise only when an award is passed by the<\/p>\n
 reference court; the benefit of the yardstick in which, should<\/p>\n
 be available to the person applying under Section 28A(1). He<\/p>\n
 further pointed out that the statutory provision in Section 28A<\/p>\n
 (1) admits only of a plain reading and therefore, so long as the<\/p>\n
 award relied on is one passed by the reference court under<\/p>\n
 Part III of the Land Acquisition Act, it makes no difference<\/p>\n
 whether it was passed in the first round or after an order of<\/p>\n
 remit by the appellate court.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10.Per contra the learned Government Pleader argued that an<\/p>\n
 appellate award passed in an appeal under Section 54 is not an<\/p>\n
 award by the “Court” meaning thereby, the principal civil<\/p>\n
 court of original jurisdiction and not the appellate court and<\/p>\n
 that therefore, in the absence of the eligibility to file<\/p>\n
WPC.25626\/09 & 24875\/09<\/p>\n
                               6<\/span><\/p>\n
 application under Section 28A(1) on the basis of award passed<\/p>\n
 in an appeal, as a necessary corollary it has also to be held that<\/p>\n
 awards passed following remit cannot form the basis of<\/p>\n
 applications under Section 28A(1). It was accordingly argued<\/p>\n
 that the application for reference on the basis of an award<\/p>\n
 following a reference under Section 18 ought to be made<\/p>\n
 within a period of three months from the date on which the<\/p>\n
 award in that reference is passed by the reference court for<\/p>\n
 the first time, though subsequent modification of that award by<\/p>\n
 the higher court or even a remit by the appellate court and<\/p>\n
 post-remit award by the reference court          may have      its<\/p>\n
 consequential impact on the ultimate decision on the<\/p>\n
 application under Section 28A(1).\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
11.The provisions in the Land Acquisition Act stands         to be<\/p>\n
 tested on the touchstone of the constitutional rights of citizens<\/p>\n
 in terms of Article 300A of the Constitution. Therefore, the<\/p>\n
 interpretation and application of the provisions of the Act also<\/p>\n
 continue to remain under the gaze of that constitutional<\/p>\n
WPC.25626\/09 & 24875\/09<\/p>\n
                                 7<\/span><\/p>\n
 provision.        The  permissible   encroachment      into   the<\/p>\n
 constitutional right to hold property has to be strictly in terms<\/p>\n
 of the statutory provisions. The approach in interpretation of<\/p>\n
 the statute law governing acquisition of land has also,<\/p>\n
 necessarily, to be such that it goes in tune with the object<\/p>\n
 sought to be achieved by the legislation and also one in<\/p>\n
 furtherance of the purpose of the legislation, though the<\/p>\n
 statutory provisions are to be first read in its plain meaning, in<\/p>\n
 the grammatical and situational backdrop in which it is placed.<\/p>\n
12.Article 300A provides that no person shall be deprived of his<\/p>\n
 property save by authority of law. The provision for<\/p>\n
 compulsory acquisition in terms of Land Acquisition Act, 1894<\/p>\n
 have to be enforced by ensuring that there is no deprivation of<\/p>\n
 property, save by authority of law. If that were so, the<\/p>\n
 provisions relating to compensatory components in the Land<\/p>\n
 Acquisition Act have to be interpreted in favour of them, who<\/p>\n
 stand to be deprived of land, on acquisition. While the courts<\/p>\n
 may lean in favour of upholding the right of the State to<\/p>\n
WPC.25626\/09 & 24875\/09<\/p>\n
                               8<\/span><\/p>\n
 acquire even by enlarging the scope of the term “public<\/p>\n
 purpose”, when it is called upon to decide on the modalities of<\/p>\n
 fixing compensation; striking a balance between the power to<\/p>\n
 acquire and the obligation to pay adequate compensation on<\/p>\n
 deprivation of property; the balancing of scales of justice<\/p>\n
 would be done by leaning in favour of the person from whom<\/p>\n
 the land is being acquired. This is the purposive modality of<\/p>\n
 construing the legislation which operates in favour of the<\/p>\n
 State, by empowering acquisition and also in favour of those<\/p>\n
 who are being deprived of land by providing adequate<\/p>\n
 compensation, in the event of compulsory acquisition.<\/p>\n
13.With the passage of time, it came to be noticed that the<\/p>\n
 provisions for determination including by way of reference to<\/p>\n
 the civil court have not been appropriately utilised or<\/p>\n
 extended. The laws in a socialist country would always have<\/p>\n
 the deprived section of the society in the forefront of its<\/p>\n
 legislative thinking. This appears to be behind the introduction<\/p>\n
 of Section 28A as per Act 68 of 1984. The purpose was to<\/p>\n
WPC.25626\/09 & 24875\/09<\/p>\n
                                 9<\/span><\/p>\n
 provide for those who could not object or did not object, to the<\/p>\n
 land value determined by the Collector, and go to the court on<\/p>\n
 a reference under Section 18.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
14.Controversies arose with the passage of time as to whether an<\/p>\n
 application under Section 28A (1) has necessarily to depend<\/p>\n
 upon the award passed in the reference first answered by the<\/p>\n
 court from among those that arose from a notification and still<\/p>\n
 further whether an application under Section 28A (1) would<\/p>\n
 depend upon anything other than the award relied on by the<\/p>\n
 applicant.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
15. The Apex Court, in Babua Ram v. State of U.P.,<\/a> (1995) 2<\/p>\n
SCC 689, held, among other things, as follows:<\/p>\n
      “A bare reading of sub-section (1) of Section 28-A<\/p>\n
      would indicate that wherein an award under this<\/p>\n
      part, (Part III consists of Sections 18 to 28), Court<\/p>\n
      allows to the applicant any amount of compensation<\/p>\n
      in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector<\/p>\n
WPC.25626\/09 & 24875\/09<\/p>\n
                               10<\/span><\/p>\n
      under Section 11, the persons interested in all the<\/p>\n
      other land covered by the same notification under<\/p>\n
      Section 4(1) and who are also aggrieved by the<\/p>\n
      award of the Collector, may, notwithstanding that<\/p>\n
      they had not made an application to the Collector<\/p>\n
      under Section 18, by writing make an application to<\/p>\n
      the Collector within three months from the date of<\/p>\n
      the award of the court requiring that the amount of<\/p>\n
      compensation payable to them may be re-determined<\/p>\n
      on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded<\/p>\n
      by the court.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n      “The basis for redetermination is the award of the<\/p>\n
      court and the compensation awarded therein.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      “Section 28-A is a complete code in itself providing<\/p>\n
      substantive right to an interested owner who<\/p>\n
      received compensation under Section 18 without<\/p>\n
      protest for higher compensation, and remedy has<\/p>\n
      been provided to make a written application within<\/p>\n
      the prescribed period. The non-obstante clause lifts<\/p>\n
      the rigour of the bar created by Section 18(1) and<\/p>\n
      the second proviso to Section 31 and makes him<\/p>\n
      eligible to be on a par with his neighbour to claim<\/p>\n
WPC.25626\/09 & 24875\/09<\/p>\n
                                   11<\/span><\/p>\n
       parity for compensation to the land similarly<\/p>\n
       situated as the land covered by the court award.”<\/p>\n
16. The ratio of Babua Ram (supra) as regards limitation was<\/p>\n
disapproved later, in Union of India and another V. Pradeep<\/p>\n
Kumari and others (1995(2) SCC 736)-(3 judges), laying down<\/p>\n
as follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        “………….the object underlying the enactment of<\/p>\n
       Section 28-A is to remove inequality in the payment<\/p>\n
       of compensation for same or similar quality of land<\/p>\n
       arising on account of inarticulate and poor people<\/p>\n
       not being able to take advantage of the right of<\/p>\n
       reference to the civil court under Section 18 of the<\/p>\n
       Act. This is sought to be achieved by providing an<\/p>\n
       opportunity to all aggrieved parties whose land is<\/p>\n
       covered       by   the   same   notification to  seek<\/p>\n
       redetermination once any of them has obtained<\/p>\n
       orders for payment of higher compensation from the<\/p>\n
       reference court under Section 18 of the Act. Section<\/p>\n
       28-A is, therefore, in the nature of a beneficent<\/p>\n
       provision intended to remove inequality and to give<\/p>\n
       relief to the inarticulate and poor people who are not<\/p>\n
WPC.25626\/09 & 24875\/09<\/p>\n
                                12<\/span><\/p>\n
       able to take advantage of right of reference to the<\/p>\n
       civil court under Section 18 of the Act. In relation to<\/p>\n
       beneficent legislation, the law is well-settled that<\/p>\n
       while construing the provisions of such a legislation<\/p>\n
       the court should adopt a construction which<\/p>\n
       advances the policy of the legislation to extend the<\/p>\n
       benefit rather than a construction which has the<\/p>\n
       effect of curtailing the benefit conferred by it. The<\/p>\n
       provisions of Section 28-A should, therefore, be<\/p>\n
       construed keeping in view the object underlying the<\/p>\n
       said provision.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
       9. A perusal of the provisions contained in sub-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       section (1) of Section 28-A of the Act would show<\/p>\n
       that after an award is made under Part III whereby<\/p>\n
       the court allows to the applicant any amount of<\/p>\n
       compensation in excess of the amount awarded by<\/p>\n
       the Collector under Section 11, a right accrues to a<\/p>\n
       person interested in the other land covered by the<\/p>\n
       same notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4<\/p>\n
       who is also aggrieved by the award of the Collector<\/p>\n
       but who had not made an application to the<\/p>\n
       Collector under Section 18, to move an application<\/p>\n
       before the Collector for redetermination of the<\/p>\n
       amount of compensation payable to him on the basis<\/p>\n
WPC.25626\/09 & 24875\/09<\/p>\n
                                  13<\/span><\/p>\n
       of the amount of compensation awarded by the<\/p>\n
       court. This application for redetermination of the<\/p>\n
       compensation is required to be made within three<\/p>\n
       months from the date of the award of the court. The<\/p>\n
       right to make the application under Section 28-A<\/p>\n
       arises from the award of the court on the basis of<\/p>\n
       which the person making the application is seeking<\/p>\n
       redetermination of the compensation. There is<\/p>\n
       nothing in sub-section (1) of Section 28-A to indicate<\/p>\n
       that this right is confined in respect of the earliest<\/p>\n
       award that is made by the court after the coming<\/p>\n
       into force of Section 28-A. By construing the<\/p>\n
       expression “where in an award under this Part” in<\/p>\n
       sub-section (1) of Section 28-A to mean “where in<\/p>\n
       the first award made by the court under this Part”,<\/p>\n
       the word `first’, which is not found in sub-section (1)<\/p>\n
       of Section 28-A, is being read therein and thereby<\/p>\n
       the amplitude of the said provision is being curtailed<\/p>\n
       so as to restrict the benefit conferred by it. In the<\/p>\n
       matter of construction of a beneficent provision it is<\/p>\n
       not permissible by judicial interpretation to read<\/p>\n
       words which are not there and thereby restrict the<\/p>\n
       scope of the said provision.”\n<\/p>\n
WPC.25626\/09 & 24875\/09<\/p>\n
                                     14<\/span><\/p>\n
       “………………. The object underlying Section 28-A<\/p>\n
       would be better achieved by giving the expression<\/p>\n
       “an award” in Section 28-A its natural meaning as<\/p>\n
       meaning the award that is made by the court in Part<\/p>\n
       III of the Act after the coming into force of Section<\/p>\n
       28-A. If the said expression in Section 28-A(1) is thus<\/p>\n
       construed, a person would be able to seek<\/p>\n
       redetermination of the amount of compensation<\/p>\n
       payable to him provided the following conditions are<\/p>\n
       satisfied :\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              (i)    An award has been made by the court<\/p>\n
      under Part III after the coming into force of Section<\/p>\n
      28-A;\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              (ii)   By the said award the amount of<\/p>\n
      compensation in excess of the amount awarded by<\/p>\n
      the Collector under Section 11 has been allowed to<\/p>\n
      the applicant in that reference;\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              (iii) The person moving the application under<\/p>\n
      Section 28-A is interested in other land covered by<\/p>\n
      the same notification under Section 4(1) to which the<\/p>\n
      said award relates;\n<\/p>\n
WPC.25626\/09 & 24875\/09<\/p>\n
                                  15<\/span><\/p>\n
              (iv) The person moving the application did not<\/p>\n
      make an application to the Collector under Section<\/p>\n
      18;\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              (v)    The application is moved within three<\/p>\n
      months from the date of the award on the basis of<\/p>\n
      which        the  redetermination    of    amount     of<\/p>\n
      compensation is sought; and<\/p>\n
              (vi) Only one application can be moved under<\/p>\n
      Section 28-A for redetermination of compensation by<\/p>\n
      an applicant.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       11. Since the cause of action for moving the<\/p>\n
       application for redetermination of compensation<\/p>\n
       under Section 28-A arises from the award on the<\/p>\n
       basis of which redetermination of compensation is<\/p>\n
       sought, the principle that “once the limitation begins<\/p>\n
       to run, it runs in its full course until its running is<\/p>\n
       interdicted by an order of the court” can have no<\/p>\n
       application because the limitation for moving the<\/p>\n
       application under Section 28-A will begin to run only<\/p>\n
       from the date of the award on the basis of which<\/p>\n
       redetermination of compensation is sought.”<\/p>\n
                                   Underlined to emphasise<\/p>\n
WPC.25626\/09 & 24875\/09<\/p>\n
                                16<\/span><\/p>\n
17.It was held in Jose Antonio Cruz Dos R. Rodriguese v.<\/p>\n
 Land Acquisition Collector,<\/a> (1996) 6 SCC 746, as follows:<\/p>\n
       “The plain language of Section 28-A, therefore,<\/p>\n
       prescribes the three months’ period of limitation to<\/p>\n
       be reckoned from the date of the award by the Court<\/p>\n
       disposing of the reference under Section 18, and not<\/p>\n
       the appellate court dealing with the appeal against<\/p>\n
       the award of the Reference Court.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
18.It was held in         U.P.State Industrial Development<\/p>\n
 Corporation Ltd V. State of U.P and others (1995(2) SCC<\/p>\n
 766), that in cases where appeals preferred by the State are<\/p>\n
 pending against awards of the reference court applications<\/p>\n
 under Section 28A(1) filed depending on such awards of the<\/p>\n
 reference courts will have to be kept pending till the disposal<\/p>\n
 of the appeal by the High Court, following the law laid in<\/p>\n
 Babua Ram (supra). In Union of India V. Bant Ram<\/a> (1996<\/p>\n
 (4) SCC 537), it was held that the obligations for re-<\/p>\n
WPC.25626\/09 & 24875\/09<\/p>\n
                               17<\/span><\/p>\n
 determination of       amount under Section 28A have to be<\/p>\n
 decided on the basis of compensation determined by the<\/p>\n
 reference court and not on the basis of appellate judgment<\/p>\n
 under Section 54. The award should be one which falls under<\/p>\n
 Chapter III under which Section 18 falls and not under<\/p>\n
 Chapter VIII under which Section 54 falls. That was a case<\/p>\n
 where the re-determination was made on the basis of the<\/p>\n
 appellate award passed by the High Court granting further<\/p>\n
 enhancement over and above the amount fixed by the<\/p>\n
 reference court. To hold so, the precedent in Babua Ram<\/p>\n
 (supra) was followed. In Hukam Chand V. State of Haryana<\/a><\/p>\n
 (1996(5) SCC 164), it was held that though a person aggrieved<\/p>\n
 by award of the Collector, but had not sought reference, would<\/p>\n
 be entitled to make an application under Section 28A(1) on the<\/p>\n
 basis of an award passed by the court at the instance of<\/p>\n
 another claimant with reference to the same notification. One<\/p>\n
 who had availed the remedy of reference court could not<\/p>\n
 thereafter fall back on Section 28A(1) on the basis of the<\/p>\n
 award of the reference court in yet another case.   It was laid<\/p>\n
WPC.25626\/09 & 24875\/09<\/p>\n
                             18<\/span><\/p>\n
 down that the remedy under Section 28A(1) is not available<\/p>\n
 when the compensation is enhanced under Section 54 of the<\/p>\n
 Act, by the appellate court. In Union of India v. Munshi<\/p>\n
 Ram<\/a> [2006(2) KLT 1992 (SC)], it was held that the amount<\/p>\n
 payable under Section 28A is the amount which is finally<\/p>\n
 payable by way of compensation to the owners of the land who<\/p>\n
 challenged the award of the Collector and claimed reference<\/p>\n
 under Section 18 of the Act. It was held that even if it be that<\/p>\n
 the compensation payable to claimants who have applied<\/p>\n
 under Section 28A of the Act is the enhanced compensation<\/p>\n
 decreed by the reference court, we must understand the<\/p>\n
 decree to be the decree of the reference court as modified in<\/p>\n
 appeal by the higher courts. It was held that under Section<\/p>\n
 28A of the Act, the compensation payable to the applicants is<\/p>\n
 the same which is finally payable to those claimants who<\/p>\n
 sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and that refund<\/p>\n
 of excess amounts could be ordered in cases where the<\/p>\n
 superior court reduced the award amount as fixed by the<\/p>\n
 reference court.\n<\/p>\n
WPC.25626\/09 & 24875\/09<\/p>\n
                                  19<\/span><\/p>\n
19.In Joseph v. District Collector<\/a> [2004(2) KLT 1029], it was<\/p>\n
 held by this court that on a literal interpretation, the award of<\/p>\n
 court for the purpose of an application under Section 28A(1)<\/p>\n
 can include an award made by the court in a reference case<\/p>\n
 registered under Section 28A(3).\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
20.In Haji A.Abdul Rashid v. Spl. Tahsildar<\/a> [2008(1) KLT<\/p>\n
 974], it was held that an application for re-determination of<\/p>\n
 compensation under section 28A(1) can be filed only on the<\/p>\n
 basis of judgment of reference court under Section 18 and<\/p>\n
 time for filing application is three months from the date of<\/p>\n
 order of appellate or revisional court.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
21.The statutory provision for consideration reads as follows:<\/p>\n
          “28-A.      Redetermination of  the  amount     of<\/p>\n
      compensation on the basis of the award of the Court.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      — (1) Where in an award under this Part, the Court<\/p>\n
      allows to the applicant any amount of compensation<\/p>\n
WPC.25626\/09 & 24875\/09<\/p>\n
                                 20<\/span><\/p>\n
      in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector<\/p>\n
      under Section 11, the persons interested in all the<\/p>\n
      other land covered by the same notification under<\/p>\n
      Section 4, sub-section (1) and who are also<\/p>\n
      aggrieved by the award of the Collector may,<\/p>\n
      notwithstanding that they had not made an<\/p>\n
      application to the Collector under Section 18, by<\/p>\n
      written application to the Collector within three<\/p>\n
      months from the date of the award of the Court<\/p>\n
      require that the amount of compensation payable to<\/p>\n
      them may be re-determined on the basis of the<\/p>\n
      amount of compensation awarded by the Court:<\/p>\n
              Provided that in computing the period of three<\/p>\n
      months within which an application to the Collector<\/p>\n
      shall be made under this sub-section, the day on<\/p>\n
      which the award was pronounced and the time<\/p>\n
      requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be<\/p>\n
      excluded.\n<\/p>\n
\n      (2) The Collector shall, on receipt of an application<\/p>\n
      under sub-section (1), conduct an inquiry after<\/p>\n
      giving notice to all the persons interested and giving<\/p>\n
      them a reasonable opportunity of being heard and<\/p>\n
WPC.25626\/09 & 24875\/09<\/p>\n
                                 21<\/span><\/p>\n
      make an          award determining  the amount     of<\/p>\n
      compensation payable to the applicants.<\/p>\n
      (3) Any person who has not accepted the award<\/p>\n
      under sub-section (2) may, by written application to<\/p>\n
      the Collector, require that the matter be referred by<\/p>\n
      the Collector for the determination of the Court and<\/p>\n
      the provisions of Sections 18 to 28 shall, so far as<\/p>\n
      may be, apply to such reference as they apply to a<\/p>\n
      reference under Section 18.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
20.The encapsulation of the components of Section 28A(1) show<\/p>\n
 that the period of limitation for an application under that<\/p>\n
 provision would depend upon the relevant particulars<\/p>\n
 reckonable on the basis of the proviso thereto as regards<\/p>\n
 the award that is relied on by the applicant. Once such<\/p>\n
 an application is filed, the Collector will be well within<\/p>\n
 authority        to take all matters into consideration as are<\/p>\n
 relevant, including whether the award relied on by the<\/p>\n
 applicant has been in any manner, interfered with by the<\/p>\n
 superior courts. If land value has been reduced, that will be<\/p>\n
WPC.25626\/09 & 24875\/09<\/p>\n
                               22<\/span><\/p>\n
 taken note of. Even if land value has been enhanced, that<\/p>\n
 would also be considered. The Collector will also be entitled to<\/p>\n
 look into other awards arising from the same notification as<\/p>\n
 supplementary materials because what ultimately comes out in<\/p>\n
 the form of award under Section 28A(2) is the compensation<\/p>\n
 based on the land value that could be given for the land<\/p>\n
 acquired from the applicant. The dissimilarities between the<\/p>\n
 land acquired from the applicant and land dealt with in the<\/p>\n
 award on the basis of which the application under Section 28<\/p>\n
 (A)(1) is filed and various other relevant materials will go into<\/p>\n
 that adjudicating process.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
21.Section 28A(1) empowers a person from whom land is<\/p>\n
 acquired, to file an application for redetermination of amount<\/p>\n
 of compensation, notwithstanding that he had not made an<\/p>\n
 application to the Collector under Section 18. This right inures<\/p>\n
 to all who are aggrieved by the award of the Collector. This<\/p>\n
 means that a person who is aggrieved by the award of the<\/p>\n
 Collector, on noticing an award passed by a court which<\/p>\n
WPC.25626\/09 & 24875\/09<\/p>\n
                                23<\/span><\/p>\n
 results in the grant of a different rate of compensation to<\/p>\n
 another person whose land is acquired under the same<\/p>\n
 notification, is eligible to make application under Section 28A.<\/p>\n
 The question would be as to what would be the basis of that<\/p>\n
 application. The statute is clear. It says under Section 28A(1)<\/p>\n
 that the cause of action to file such an application arises where<\/p>\n
 in an award passed in this part, the court allows compensation<\/p>\n
 in excess of the amount award by the Collector. This means<\/p>\n
 that what is relevant is the award under Part III of the Act<\/p>\n
 which deals with reference to court and procedure thereon.<\/p>\n
 Notwithstanding the fact that an order of remit has been made<\/p>\n
 by an appellate court in exercise of the authority under Section<\/p>\n
 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, the consequential adjudication<\/p>\n
 by the reference court and the resultant award that would be<\/p>\n
 passed after remit by the appellate court is nothing but an<\/p>\n
 award under Part III of the Act. So much so, an award passed<\/p>\n
 by reference court following an appellate order of remit, is an<\/p>\n
 award sufficient to sustain an application under Section 28A<\/p>\n
 (1) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
WPC.25626\/09 & 24875\/09<\/p>\n
                                24<\/span><\/p>\n
  With the aforesaid finding, all the impugned orders are set<\/p>\n
  aside and the official respondent is directed to decide on the<\/p>\n
  applications for reference de novo in the light of what is stated<\/p>\n
  above. Writ petitions ordered accordingly.<\/p>\n
                                         Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                           THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN,
\n                                         JUDGE<\/p>\n
lgk\/30\/9<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Panachikunnel Annamma Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 29 September, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 25626 of 2009(W) 1. PANACHIKUNNEL ANNAMMA THOMAS, … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, … Respondent 2. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A.), For Petitioner :SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon’ble MR. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-139351","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPanachikunnel Annamma Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 29 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panachikunnel-annamma-thomas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-29-september-2009-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Panachikunnel Annamma Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 29 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panachikunnel-annamma-thomas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-29-september-2009-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-06-02T01:54:29+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/panachikunnel-annamma-thomas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-29-september-2009-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/panachikunnel-annamma-thomas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-29-september-2009-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Panachikunnel Annamma Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 29 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-02T01:54:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/panachikunnel-annamma-thomas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-29-september-2009-2\"},\"wordCount\":4024,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/panachikunnel-annamma-thomas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-29-september-2009-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/panachikunnel-annamma-thomas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-29-september-2009-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/panachikunnel-annamma-thomas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-29-september-2009-2\",\"name\":\"Panachikunnel Annamma Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 29 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-02T01:54:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/panachikunnel-annamma-thomas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-29-september-2009-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/panachikunnel-annamma-thomas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-29-september-2009-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/panachikunnel-annamma-thomas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-29-september-2009-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Panachikunnel Annamma Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 29 September, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Panachikunnel Annamma Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 29 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panachikunnel-annamma-thomas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-29-september-2009-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Panachikunnel Annamma Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 29 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panachikunnel-annamma-thomas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-29-september-2009-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-06-02T01:54:29+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panachikunnel-annamma-thomas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-29-september-2009-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panachikunnel-annamma-thomas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-29-september-2009-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Panachikunnel Annamma Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 29 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-02T01:54:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panachikunnel-annamma-thomas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-29-september-2009-2"},"wordCount":4024,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panachikunnel-annamma-thomas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-29-september-2009-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panachikunnel-annamma-thomas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-29-september-2009-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panachikunnel-annamma-thomas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-29-september-2009-2","name":"Panachikunnel Annamma Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 29 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-02T01:54:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panachikunnel-annamma-thomas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-29-september-2009-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panachikunnel-annamma-thomas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-29-september-2009-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panachikunnel-annamma-thomas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-29-september-2009-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Panachikunnel Annamma Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 29 September, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/139351","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=139351"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/139351\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=139351"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=139351"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=139351"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}