THAYYAL KAPPANAKKAL MOOSAN Vs. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner states that 0.1012 hectors of land in R.S. No. 69/3 of Ramanthali Village was acquired for establishment of Naval Academy at Ezhimala. By submitting Ext.P1, petitioner sought redetermination of the compensation as provided under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act. That application was rejected by Ext.P2 order. Thereupon the petitioner sought a reference under Section 28A(3) by submitting Ext.P3. That application was also rejected by Ext.P4. It is challenging Exts.P2 and P4, the writ petition has been filed. A reading of Exts.P2 and P4 orders show that the reason stated for rejection is that the award in LAR.No.120/2006 of Sub Corut, Payyannur relied on by the petitioner in Exts.P1 and P3 applications were rendered in a reference under Section 28A(3) of the Act and not under Section 18 of the Act. Therefore, according to the respondent redetermination is not possible based on such an award. It is also seen that to substantiate the aforesaid conclusion the respondents have relied on the judgment of this court in Haji A. Abdul Rashid V. Spl. Tahsildar, 2008 1 KerLT 974.

(2.) However, I am of the view that the conclusion in Exts.P2 and P4 is not supported by the principles laid down by this court in judgment referred above. On the other hand, in the judgment in Joseph V. District Collector, 2004 2 KerLT 1029 this court has held that an award under Section 28A(3) is sufficient to maintain a claim under Section 28A. Therefore, Exts,.P2 and P4 are unsustainable and are quashed. The 2nd respondent is directed to pass fresh orders on Ext.P1. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 8 weeks of production of a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition.