ANILKUMAR P Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The interpretational interplay of sub-Sec. 1 and 3 of Sec. 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as the "LA Act" for short), has been invited to my attention in this case because the petitioner says that even if his application under sec. 28A(1) of the said Act is rejected, he obtains a right to make further application for reference to the competent Reference Court under Sec. 28A(3) thereof.

(2.) The petitioner is stated to be the owner of a property which has been acquired by the Government for the purpose of establishment of an "IT Park" and concedes that an Award was also issued in his favour. He says that, however, certain other land owners of the properties covered by the same acquisition notification, took up their Awards before the Sub-Court, Kozhikkod, in LAR 90/2013 and connected matters, which culminated in Ext.P4 order dtd. 21/10/2014, enhancing the compensation. He says that he, thereupon, preferred an application under Sec. 28A(1) of the "LA Act" on 20/10/2015, which is within the statutory time limit, but that no action was taken by the competent Authority on it for the next five years.

(3.) The petitioners says that, in the meanwhile, Ext.P5 order was challenged before this Court, which ended in Ext.P3 judgment in LAA No.20/2015 and connected matters, delivered on 28/05/2018. He says that he came to be aware of this judgment only later and that immediately thereafter, on 27/11/2019, he applied for a certified copy of the same, which was delivered to him sometime on 05/12/2019 and that within two months hence, he preferred a fresh application under Sec. 28A(1) of the "LA Act" before the competent Authority on 29/01/2020. The petitioner says that it transpires the competent Authority, vide Ext.P5 order dtd. 18/01/2020, disposed of his first application dtd. 21/10/2014 and then pertinently issued Ext.P6 order on 07/05/2021, deciding his second application dtd. 29/01/2020.