The main legal point established in the judgment is that the order refusing to redetermine the compensation is also an award within the meaning of sub-sections 2 and 3 of S.28A of The Land Acquisition Act.

The relief's sought for in the O.P. read:-"...This Honorable Court be pleased to issue:

(a) Writ of certiorari and quash Ext.PS order passed by the 3rd respondent, after calling for the records leading to it;

(b) Writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent to entertain Ext.P4 application and refer the matter to the Sub Court, Ernakulam under S.28A(3) of the Act;

(c) An order of stay of the operation of Ext.PS order, pending disposal of the O.P.; And

(d) Such order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case".

2. Ext.P1 shows that the civil court has enhanced the compensation, awarded in favour of Devaky Amma and Balakrishnan Panicker for acquiring their lands, which were notified for acquisition (vide the Notification under S.4, sub-section 1 of The Land Acquisition Act, for short, The Act) along with the land belonging to the petitioner. Having come to know of Ext.P1 judgment, the petitioner preferred an application under S.28A of the Act before the Collector, which stands rejected by Ext.PS order. The operative portion of Ext.P3 order reads: -

"I have perused the records and the enquiry report. The contention contained in the averments of the learned counsels were also considered. The judgment relied on by the applicant is the judgment in L.A.R.198/86 dt. 30-1-88 of the learned Sub Judge, Ernakulam. According to the judgment the learned Sub judge has enhanced compensation to Rs.9527/- per Are for an extent of 7.08 Ares in Sy.No.453/2 of Kumbalam Village of Kanayannur Taluk for which the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded a land value of Rs.1800/- per Are. The learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the Court has ordered the enhancement based upon the category of land categorized by the Awarding Officer. The compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer for the land for which enhanced compensation awarded by the Court in L.A.R.198/86 is Rs.1800/- per Are, whereas the compensation awarded by the L.A.O. for the land of the applicant herein is Rs.1600/-. It is evident therefore that the lands of the applicant and the land for which enhancement ordered by the Court are not of the same category as categorized by the L.A.O. though both of them are under the same notification. Enquiry report also corroborates this fact. Therefore the judgment based on which enhancement is claimed is not relevant in this case.

In the above circumstances I find no reason to redetermine the case under S.28 A of the L.A. Act. The application does not merit consideration. Hence it is rejected.

Since there is no award under Sub-section (2) of S.29(A), the request to refer the case under sub-section (3) of S.28A is also rejected".

On going through the above excerpt it is clear that the Land Acquisition Officer rejected the request of the petitioner to have the matter (the request of the petitioner to have the compensation enhanced taking into account the judgment of the court, Ext.P1) referred to the civil court only for the reason that his decision rejecting the application under S.28A, cannot be said to be an award within the meaning of sub-section 3 of S.28A of The Act.

3. I shall now read relevant parts of S.28A: -

"28A. re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the court

(2) The Collector shall, on receipt of an application under sub-section (1), conduct an inquiry after giving notice to all the persons interested and giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard and make an award determining the amount of compensation payable to the applicants.

(3) Any person who has not accepted the award under sub-section (2) may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector, for the determination of the Court and the provisions of Ss.18 to 28 shall, so far as may be, apply to such reference as they apply to a reference under S.18".

Sub-section 2 would suggest, the learned Government Pleader