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. Having regard to the importance of the question involved, the Government Pleader was directed to take notice and get instructions from the Land Acquisition Officer. Mr. R. Muraleedharan Pillai, Senior Government Pleader was directed to do requisite research so that the States view point on the question can be expressed in the light of all available judicial precedents which are relevant and accordingly the case was heard in part on 16-6-2004 and finally on 22-6-2004.

4. Sri Rajeev V. Kurup, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Section 28A speaks of redetermination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the court and does not draw a distinction between awards passed by the reference court on a reference initiated under Section 18 and a reference initiated under Section 28A(3). Both the awards were passed by the court under Part III of the Land Acquisition Act, he submitted. Mr. Rajeev further submitted that for all the practical purposes an award passed under Section 28A(3) is a good as an award passed under Section 18 since the provisions of Section 18 to 28 have been expressly made applicable to reference under Section 28A(3) also. The legislative objective underlying Section 28A, according to the learned counsel, was only to bring about parity in the matter of compensation given to land owners of similar lands acquired under the very same notification under Section 4(1). Both literal and purposive interpretation will justify a conclusion that even awards passed by courts under Section 28A(3), reference can be relied on for the purpose of applications under Section 28A, according to him. Counsel drew my attention in support on his submissions to various decisions of the Supreme Court such as Union of India and another v. Pradeep Kumari 1995 (2) SCC 736, the Constitution Bench decision in Union of India v. Hansoli Devi 2002 (7) SCC 273 and also to certain passengers in the decision of the Supreme Court in Babu Ram v. State of U.P. 1995 (2) SCC 689 and Union of India v. Karnail Singh (1995(2) SCC 728).

5. Sri R. Muraleedharan Pillai, learned Senior Government Pleader confessed that he was unable to come across a decision either of the Supreme Court or