SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(Ker) 106

Judgename : K.PADMANABHAN NAIR
Haji A.Abdul Rashid - Appellant
Versus
Special Tahsildar (L.A.General) - Respondents
Case No : WP(C) No.31996 of 2006(H)
Decided On : 02/14/2008

Advocates Appeared:For the Petitioners:V.V. Asokan, Advocate. For the Respondents:A. Rajeswari, SC, Railways, Advocate.

Headnote:

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 28A & 18 -Petitioners are owners of properties - Lands owned by the petitioners were acquired for a public purpose - They did not file petition under S.18 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act for referring the matter to the Land Acquisition Court for determining enhancement in the compensation - But some of the owners of properties lying adjacent to the properties owned by the petitioners filed applications under S.18 of the Act claiming enhancement - Those applications were dismissed - Main contention raised by the petitioners is that since they have filed application before the judgment of this Court, those applications must be deemed to be within the time - Held, Time limit for filing an application claiming benefit under S.28A will begin to run only on the date of judgment of the Appellate Court and not from the date of order of the reference court - An application for redetermination of compensation can be made only on the basis of judgment of reference court under S.18 of the Act - Writ Petition Dismissed.

Judgment :

The petitioners are owners of properties situated in Mammiyoor Village. Lands owned by the petitioners were acquired for a public purpose. They did not file petition under Section 18 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act (for short the Act) for referring the matter to the Land Acquisition Court for determining enhancement in the compensation. But some of the owners of properties lying adjacent to the properties owned by the petitioners filed applications under Section 18 of the Act claiming enhancement. Those cases were referred to Sub Court, Thrissur by the Land Acquisition Officer and the Sub Judge, Thrissur enhanced the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. On 20.12.2002 petitioners had filed Ext.P2 series applications under Section 28A of the Act claiming benefit under that Section. Those applications were dismissed by the Land Acquisition Officer vide Ext.P4 series orders dated 10.2006, 110.2006 and 210.2006. Thereafter petitioners have filed applications under Section 28A(3) of the Act. Challenging Ext.P1 judgment the requisitioning authority filed L.A.A.No.1401/2002 and connected cases before this Court. This Court by judgment dated 12.2005 dismissed all the appeals. The main contention raised by the petitioners is that since they have filed application before the judgment of this Court, those applications must be deemed to be within the time. It is argued that a person who claims benefit under Section 28A of the Act is entitled to get the value fixed by the reference court which is modified or enhanced by the appellate or revisional court. According to the respondents even though the claimant under Section 28A is entitled to get the value fixed by the appellate court the time for filing the application is three months from the date of order of the Land Acquisition Court and not from the date of order of appellate or revisional court. Section 28A reads as follows:

28A. Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court.-

(1) 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 Section 11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under Section 4, sub-section (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 Section 18, by written application to the Collector within three months from the date 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.

2. TheCollector 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 Sections 18 to 28 shall, so far as may be, apply to such reference as they apply to a reference under Section 18.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied on a decision reported in Union of India v. Munshi Ram (2006(2) KLT 992) in which it was held as follows:

"........the amount payable under S.28-A of the Act is the amount which is finally payable by way of compensation to the owners of the land who challenged the award of the Collector and claimed reference under S.18 of the Act. The said provision seeks to confer the bene






Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top