T. ABDUL HAMEED Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue involved in all these three cases is almost similar and in relation to very same Award passed by the acquisitioning authority. Hence these cases are dealt with together.

(2.) THE land belonging to the petitioners were sought to be acquired on the strength of 4 (1) notification issued under the Land Acquisition Act. The proceedings culminated in the Award passed by the acquisitioning authority. In some cases, the owners of the land, who were not satisfied with the compensation offered by the concerned authority sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act. The verdict passed by the Reference Court was not in favour of the parties and in the said circumstances, they sought to challenge the same by way of Land Acquisition Appeals before this Court. It is stated that the said appeals were considered and remanded for fresh consideration of the reference Court. After fresh consideration, Ext. P1 common Award was passed on 30.11.2013. The case of the petitioners is that, in view of the common Award passed by the reference Court, the petitioners are also entitled to have the enhanced compensation, by virtue of proximity of the land in question and on account of the similar credentials. It is also pointed out that the properties belonging to the petitioners are covered by the very same notification and as such, the case of the petitioners squarely comes within the purview of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act. It was accordingly, that the petitioners filed requisite applications [Ext. P2 in W.P.(C) No. 19245 & 19605 of 2014 and Ext. P3 in other case]. It is stated that the applications are filed well within the time. In spite of this, the applications preferred by the petitioners were simply rejected, as borne by Ext. P3 in the former two cases and Ext. P4 in the latter case, stating that the claim put forward by the petitioners is not liable to be entertained for the fact that no objection was ever preferred under Section 18 of the Act.

(3.) AFTER hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the law declared by the Apex Court as per the decision cited supra was with reference to scope of Section 18 of the Act. There is no dispute with regard to the said aspect. The issue involved herein is entirely different, which is with reference to the right of the petitioners under Section 28A of the Act. Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act reads as follows :