Compensation claims under differing land acquisition acts must consider equal treatment for similarly situated land owners.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P7.

2. Petitioner’s land was acquired by the 1^st respondent for the 5^th respondent and the compensation was paid as per the award passed under Section 11 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act 1894”). Petitioner accepted the award on a specific condition that she is eligible to enhanced compensation if any paid to any other similar land covered by the same notification under Section 4(1) of the Act 1894. Later the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Thiruvananthapuram awarded compensation at higher rates in respect of some other lands covered by the same notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894. Petitioner relying on Ext.P2 judgment of the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Thiruvananthapuram made a claim as per Ext.P3 application which was rejected by the 4^th respondent as per Ext.P4 and the same was challenged before this Court filing W.P.(C) No.22050 of 2024. This Court allowed the writ petition as per Ext.P5 judgment dated 24.02.2025 and directed the 4^th respondent to reconsider the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 28A on merits. Pursuant to the same Ext.P7 order has been passed by the 4^th respondent rejecting the claim of the petitioner. It is submitted that the said order was issued in clear violation of the directions in Ext.P5 judgment.

3. Learned Government Pleader on the basis of the counter affidavit filed by the 4^th respondent would submit that the petitioner was heard as directed by this Court in Ext.P5 judgment and a reasoned order was issued as per Ext.P7. The specific contention raised in the counter affidavit is that the petitioner had accepted all terms of Form 10(a) agreement with a 45% enhancement and handed over the land unconditionally and therefore the claim now raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition is devoid of any merits. It is further submitted that Ext.P2 judgment was delivered by the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Thiruvananthapuram following the new Act, ie., Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “Act 2013”) and the same cannot be taken into account for determining compensation under Section 28A of the Act 1894.

4. I have heard the rival contentions on both sides.

5. By Ext.P4 the request of the petitioner was rejected by the 4^th respondent taking a stand that amount was paid based on the agreement and consent letter executed by the petitioner in Form 10(a) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Rules, 1990 undertaking that she will not raise any further claim for compensation and the amount is received without any protest and after having received the said amount the claim made by the petitioner under Section 28A of the Act 1894 cannot be considered. It is challenging the same that the petitioner has approached this Court filing W.P.(C) No.22050 of 2024. After hearing the contentions of both sides, this Court entered a finding to the effect that the petitioner participated in negotiation making her position very clear that it was without prejudice to the claim for enhanced compensation in the event of any other lands involved in the same notification being awarded enhanced compensation and this Court held that the petitioner would be a ‘person aggrieved’ within the meaning of of the Act 1894 and would be entitled to make an application when some other land owners’ applications for reference are answered by the reference court. It is also found that since the petitioner accepted the award without prejudice to her right to enhanced compensation, she