Proper procedural adherence is essential in redetermining compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, ensuring that valid basis exists for claims made under Section 28A.

JUDGMENT

R.Narayana Pisharadi, J The procedure adopted by the reference court for determination of compensation under Section 28A (3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is under challenge in these appeals.

2. Lands owned by the party respondents in these appeals (hereinafter referred to as 'the applicants') were acquired for the purpose of construction of a railway overbridge. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on

326 of 2015 12

21.04.2003. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the compensation due to the applicants. They did not make any application under Section 18 of the Act. Subsequently, they filed application under Section 28A (1) of the Act for redetermination of the amount of compensation. The basis of that application was the award passed by the reference court in L.A.R.No.76/2009, which related to acquisition of land for the same purpose under the same notification. The Land Acquisition Officer rejected the claim made by the applicants for redetermination of the compensation on the basis of the award passed by the reference court in L.A.R.No.76/2009 but made reference to the court under Section

28A(3) of the Act.

3. During the proceedings before the reference court, AW1 and AW2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A4 and Exts.C1 and C1(a) documents were marked. The reference court enhanced the amount of compensation after taking such evidence and after conducting an elaborate enquiry. Aggrieved by the awards passed by the reference court, the State has filed these appeals.

326 of 2015 13

4. We have heard learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the respondents.

5. Learned Government Pleader has submitted that the award passed by the reference court in L.A.R.No.76/2009 was set aside by this Court in the appeal L.A.A.No.432/2012 and this Court remanded the aforesaid case for fresh consideration by the reference court. Therefore, the learned Government Pleader would contend that there was no subsisting award in L.A.R.No.76/2009 on the basis of which the reference court could have redetermined the compensation under Section 28A (3) of the Act. Learned Government Pleader also contended that the procedure adopted by the reference court for determination of the compensation in the cases referred to under (3)

of the Act was illegal and improper.

6. The applicants had not produced before the reference court the certified copy of the judgment of that court in L.A.R.No.76/2009. They had produced a copy of the judgment of this Court in the appeal L.A.A.No.432/2012. The aforesaid

326 of 2015 14 appeal was filed by the claimants therein challenging the award passed by the reference court in L.A.R.No.76/2009. As per the judgment dated 11.09.2012 in L.A.A.No.432/2012, this Court had set aside the award passed in L.A.R.No.76/2009 and remanded that case for fresh consideration by the reference court.

7. In such circumstances, there is merit in the contention of the learned Government Pleader that there was no subsisting award in L.A.R.No.76/2009 which formed the basis of the claim made by the applicants for redetermination of the amount of compensation under Section 28A (1) of the Act. In other words, there was no judgment or decree of the reference court in L.A.R.No.76/2009 in existence on the basis of which the applicants could have claimed determination of the amount of compensation under (3) of the Act.

8. The reference court has found that the applicants are entitled to get enhancement of compensation. The reference court has treated the reference made under Section 28A (3) of

326 of 2015 15 the Act as a reference under Section 18 of the Act and enhanced the compensation on the basis of the evidence tendered before it.

9. The reference court has relied upon the decision of this Court inPurushan v. State of Kerala : 2005(1) KLT 687 in adopting the procedure mentioned above. InPurushan (supra), this Court had held that market value of the land as on the date of notification