RAGHAVA PODUVAL Vs. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the appellant is that the Land Acquisition Officer dismissed the application under S.28A filed by him on the ground that his property is registered as other dry lands while the property which is subject matter of the judgment relied on in the application stood registered in the revenue records as garden land. Upon his application, the Land Acquisition Officer made a reference under S.28A(3) to the Court. The Court permitted the parties to adduce evidence. A Commissioner was deputed and he filed a report which indicates that appellant's land was a land planted with cashew trees and the trees were not high yielding ones. In other words the Court took the view that the lands covered by the judgment relied on by the appellant and the appellant's own land are not similar.

(2.) It is transparently clear from the award of the officer and from the award of the Court that the appellant's property and the property which was the subject matter of the court judgment relied on by the appellant were acquired under the very same 4(1) notification. But, of course it is not clear from the judgment as to what was the rate awarded by the officer originally to the appellant and to the party in the judgment which was relied on. Sri. O. Ramachandran Nambiar, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is not necessary that the awarding officer should have given same rate to the applicant in an application under S.28A and to the party in the judgment relied on in the said application. The learned Government Pleader submits that the objective behind under S.28A is to give equal justice to those who were treated equally by the Land Acquisition Officer; in the matter of land value.

(3.) The argument of the learned Government Pleader has got some first blush attraction. Even then, the plain language of S.28A in my view will not support the acceptance of such an argument. S.28A reads as follows: