KORA Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner's land was acquired for public purpose. He filed a petition before the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act contending that enhanced compensation was given for the adjacent lands acquired from the same notification for the same purpose. He relied on the awards passed in L.A.R. Nos. 8/2003, 19/2003, 27/2003 and 28/2003. Land Acquisition Officer informed that appeals were filed against the above award as L.A.A. Nos. 419, 470, 472 and 474/2006 and the appeals are pending before this Court and therefore question of granting enhanced compensation will be considered after disposal of the appeals. According to the petitioner he ought to have been awarded enhanced compensation under Section 28A. When the matter came up before the Learned Single Judge, petitioner relied on the observations in Thomas v. District Collector,2000 2 KerLT 160. In the above case it was observed that on the ground that appeal is pending, Section 28A application cannot be rejected. It was further opined that it is advisable to pay the enhanced compensation subject to the result of the appeal after getting security for the amount released. We are of the opinion that merely because of the pending appeal, Section 28A application cannot be rejected. In Thomas's case (supra) application filed under Section 28A was rejected on the ground that appeals are pending. Ration of the decision is that application under Section 28A cannot be rejected merely on the ground that appeal is pending. There is no dispute for the above ratio. The other observation to pay the enhanced compensation after getting security is only an obiter or a suggestion as one of the methods that can be adopted by Land Acquisition Authority on the facts of a case. Here in this case his application was not dismissed or rejected. Land Acquisition Officer only stated that since appeals are pending enhanced amount on the basis of Land Acquisition awards cannot be made now and that will be considered after the decision in L.A.A. Nos. 657/2005 and 664/2005. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of thee opinion that no interference is required in the above order and hence this writ petition is dismissed.

(2.) However, we direct that on disposal of the L.A.A.'s relied on, the petitioner's application under Section 28A should be finalised as expeditiously as possible, and in any event, within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgments in the concerned Land Acquisition Appeals.