P V JOSEPH Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOTTAYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A question of considerable importance arises for decision in this writ petition. The question is whether to maintain an application under section 28a of the Land Acquisition Act for redetermination of the amount of compensation payable to a party who had not made an application to the collector under Section 18, it is necessary that the court award relied on by the applicant should be one passed on a reference made by the Land Acquisition officer under Section 18 at the behest of some other owner whose land was also acquired under the same Section 4 (1) notification. Incidentally the question is whether the expression "award of the court" employed in the heading and body of Section 28a (1) can include an award made by the court in a reference case registered under Section 28a (3) also?

(2.) THE short facts are that the petitioner's property extending to 9. 20 Ares was acquired on the basis of an award passed by the 2nd respondent, Land Acquisition Officer for the Muvattupuzha Vallley Irrigation project. THE petitioner did not seek a reference under Section 18 of the Land acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation. THE petitioner filed Ext. P1 application under Section 28a producing the certified copy of court award in l. A. R. No. 13/2002. THE Land Acquisition Officer rejected Ext. P1 by passing ext. P2 on the ground that the court award in L. A. R. No. 13/2002 was passed not on a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act but instead it was passed on a reference under Section 28a (3 ). According to Ext. P2, the law as it obtains presently will not enable the Land Acquisition Officer to consider applications under Section 28 which are filed placing reliance on judgments passed by the reference court on references made under Section 28a (3 ).

(3.) SRI R. Muraleedharan Pillai, learned Senior Government pleader confessed that he was unable to come across a decision either of the supreme Court or by any High court which clearly takes the view that an award passed by a reference court in a reference under Section 28a (3) cannot be relied on for the purpose of maintaining an application under Section 28a. Meeting the argument of SRI. Rajeev V. Kurup that on the language of an award under Section 28a (3) is as good as award under Section 18 he submitted that the provisions of Sections 18 to 28 deal with the procedure to be followed by the reference court and they do not deal with the power to enhance compensation as such. The Government Pleader further submitted that accepting the argument of the petitioner will be to open a flood gate for cases which stands barred by limitation and it could never had been intention of the legislature to permit parties who had slept over their rights for decades to wake up one fine morning and seek enhancement on the basis that his neighbour had been given more amounts on the basis that another neighbour had been given more amounts.