Pius C. Kuriakose, J.

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 theCourt. 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 originall