A landowner who receives compensation under protest and reserves rights for enhanced compensation qualifies as 'aggrieved' under Section 28A, allowing them to seek re-evaluation of compensation.

The applicability of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the LA Act' for short) to an award passed under Section 11 (2) of the said Act falls for consideration in this writ petition.

2. The property of the petitioner, having an extent of 3.4560 Hectares of land comprised in Re.Sy.No.187/1 of Veiloor Village, was acquired under the LA Act for establishing a Life Science Park for the 5^th respondent, an instrumentality of the State. The compensation was fixed after negotiation, and the award in LAC No. 36/2010 was passed under Section 11 (2) of the LA Act for a sum of Rs.15,33,49,804/-. The petitioner received the compensation amount on 7/4/2011. Another 38 cents of land belonging to the petitioner comprised in the same notification was also acquired, and compensation was awarded to her in LAC No.35/2010. At the instance of the petitioner, reference for enhanced compensation for the said 38 cents of land was made to the Authority under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, 'the 2013 Act') and the Authority in LAR No.21/2017 passed Ext. P15 award allowing enhanced compensation. The petitioner preferred Ext. P16 application under Section 28A of the LA Act before the 4^th respondent for redetermination of the compensation awarded in LAC No.36/2010 based on Ext. P15 award passed in LAR No.21/2017. The 4^th respondent rejected the claim for enhanced compensation as per Ext.P17 order. The writ petition has been filed challenging the said order.

3. According to the petitioner, she accepted the award in LAC No.36/2010 passed under Section 11 (2) of the LA Act on the specific condition that she is eligible for enhanced compensation, if any, paid to any other similar land covered by the same notification and hence she is entitled to get enhanced compensation under Section 28A of the LA Act based on Ext. P15 award passed by the Authority. It is alleged that in Ext.P3 affidavit filed by the petitioner before the 4^th respondent, she expressed her willingness for a settlement on an agreed price reserving her right to claim enhanced compensation in the event of any other land covered by the same notification is paid a higher rate of compensation and it was without prejudice to her right for enhanced compensation stated in Ext.P3 that she received the compensation awarded in LAC No.36/2010.

4. The 4^th and 5^th respondents filed separate counter affidavits refuting the allegations in the writ petition. In the statement filed by the 4^th respondent, it is contended that the compensation was fixed for the acquired land of the petitioner in LAC No.36/2010 on the basis of negotiation and the petitioner executed agreement in Form 10(a) prescribed under the Land Acquisition (Kerala) Rules, 1990 which contains a specific condition that the owner and interested party shall not claim any amount in addition to the amount agreed upon as compensation and the petitioner accepted it without any protest. It is further contended that in the award, there is no condition that the petitioner is eligible for enhanced compensation for any reason and hence, she cannot make a claim for enhanced compensation invoking Section 28A of the LA Act. It is also contended that Ext.P3 affidavit has no legal sanctity since the same was submitted much before the date of execution of the 10(a) agreement. In the counter affidavit filed by the 5^th respondent, it is con