The main legal point established in the judgment is that a claimant cannot seek an amount in excess of what was claimed in the application for re-determination, even if subsequent awards granted higher compensation. However, the claimant is entitled to interest on the additional land value, following the principles of an ordinary reference case under S.18.

K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.

The appeal is by the State and the Cross Appeal is by the claimant in L.A.R.102/1996 on the file of the Sub Court, Kozhikode. The land acquisition reference case arose under S.28A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as the Act.

2. About 51.80 Acres of land in Nellikode Village in Kozhikode Taluk was notified for acquisition, on 30.10.79. Award was passed on 30.9.1981. The claimant did not object to the award. Naturally, he could not file an application for reference under S.18 of the Act. Later he came to know that as per judgment dated 10.4.1987 in L.A.R.22/83 the Court had granted Rs. 1700/- percent; whereas the claimant pit only Rs. 1109/- per cent as awarded by the land acquisition officer. Thereupon, the claimant preferred an application dated 3.7.1987, before the Collector, under S.28{AX 1) of the Act seeking re-determination of the land value in respect of the holding acquired from him. That application was enquired into based on a direction from this Court in O.P. No. 8207/92. The Collector conducted a local inspection. Subsequent to such inspection, the claimant produced an award dated 31.1.89 in L.A.R.161/85 and a judgment 8.4.1992 of this Court in L.A.A. No. 289/88. Those were produced on 5.9.1992 before the Collector. As per these Rs. 2450/- had been awarded per cent. The Collector found that the land acquired from the claimant and the land covered by L.A.R.22/83 were of similar nature and mat the claimant was entitled to get compensation equivalent to that awarded by the court in L.A.R.22/83. The claimant was not satisfied with the award so passed. According to him, he was entitled to the amount awarded in L.A.R. No. 161/85 and in L.A.A. No. 289/88. Therefore, he sought reference under S.28-A(3). The Collector referred the matter and that reference was answered by the judgment impugned in favour of the claimant. The Court granted land value taking into account the award in L.A.R. No. 161/85 and L-AA. No. 289/88, though not to the full extent, fixing the land value at Rs. 2450/- per cent State is aggrieved by this. Therefore L.A.A. No. 1241/1998. The Court did not grant interest on the amount additionally awarded by the Collector. The Court granted interest from the date of the decree until the date of realisation. The claimant is aggrieved as the court did not accept fully the award in L.A.R.161/85. So the claimant has preferred the Cross Appeal.

3. During the hearing, an important question centered around the interpretation of S.28-A of the Act arose for our consideration. S.28-A(1) of the Act reads as follows:

"Where in an award under this Part the Court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under S.11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under S.4, sub-s.(1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under S.18, by written application to the Collector within three months from the dale of the award of the Court require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be re-determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court:

Provided that in computing the period of three months within which an application to the Collector shall be made under this sub-section, the day on which the award was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded."

The application originally made by the claimant on 3,7.1987 did not form part of the records. But, we could trace it as it formed part of the records in O.P.No. 8207/92. Accordingly, we brought the judges papers relating to that Original Petition and found that Ext. P4 in that Original Petition was the application under S.28(A)(1) made by the claimant. That application did not refer to the objections, if any, made by the claimant against the original award passed by the C