JUDGMENT :

(P.B. Suresh Kumar, J.)

The above appeals arise from the common judgment in a few references made under Section 28A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act). The claimants in the proceedings are the appellants.

2. Lands held by the claimants were acquired pursuant to a notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act for development of the road connectivity to the International Container Transshipment Terminal at Vallarpadam and they have been paid compensation as fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The claimants have not made any references for enhanced compensation in terms of Section 18 of the Act. Later, when a few references made at the instance of similarly placed persons under Section 18 of the Act were answered in their favour, applications were filed by some others for re-determination of the compensation paid to them under Section 28A of the Act. Some of the said applications were rejected by the competent authority and consequently, there were a few references under Section 28A(3) of the Act. Three among the said references were answered in favour of the claimants in LAR Nos.6 of 2013, 2 of 2013 and 3 of 2013 on the files of the Sub Court, Ernakulam. The claimants in the proceedings from which these appeals arise, in the circumstances, preferred applications for re-determination of compensation under Section 28A(1) of the Act based on the judgments in LAR Nos.2 of 2013, 3 of 2013 and 6 of 2013. The said applications were rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer. The claimants, in the circumstances, sought references for adjudication of the issue under Section 28A(3) of the Act and the matters were accordingly referred to the court. The said references are answered against the claimants and these appeals are preferred by the claimants aggrieved by the said decision of the reference court.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as also the learned Government Pleader.

4. Since a doubt arose as to whether a request for re-determination of compensation under Section 28A(1) of the Act could be made based on an award under Section 28A(3) of the Act, the learned counsel for the parties on either side were requested to address arguments on that question before proceeding with the cases on merits. Accordingly, counsel on both sides addressed arguments.

5. It was asserted by the learned counsel for the claimants that an application could be preferred invoking Section 28A(1) of the Act for re-determination of compensation based on an award of the court passed under Section 28A(3) of the Act also. He placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Joseph v. District Collector, 2004 KHC 711, in support of the said proposition. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, pointed out that there are conflicting views on this question. It was pointed out that in Haji A. Abdul Rashid and Others v. Spl. Tahsildar (L.A.General), Trichur and Others, 2008 1 KHC 1026, a view diametrically opposite to the view taken by this Court in Joseph has been taken and though the divergent views on the question have been taken note of by this Court in Palakkel Chirukandan and Others v. Special Tahsildar (LA), Payyannur and Another, 2014 KHC 810, instead of referring the issue for decision to a Larger Bench, the learned Judge, endorsed the view taken by this Court in Joseph. According to the learned Government Pleader, the view taken by this Court in Joseph and Palakkel Chirukandan on the question is contrary to the scheme of the statute and it needs to be reconsidered.

6. As the question aforesaid is one which would affect the maintainability of the application preferred by the claimants, we have considered the same before proceeding to decide the appeals on merits.

7. We have perused the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the parties on either side and we find that the question had not arisen for consideration directly in Haji A. Abdul Rashid. True, the question fell for consideration directly in Joseph and Pala