MADHAVI Vs. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The interesting question that has come up for decision in this case is the scope and ambit of C1.6 of the conditions enumerated by the Apex Court in the decision in Union of India and Another v. Pradeep Kumari and Others ( AIR 1995 SC 2259 ) with reference to S.28A of the Land Acquisition Act introduced through S.18 of the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 w.e.f. 24.9.1984.
(2.) For the work of realignment of National Highway three bits of property totalling to an extent of 10 cents in Sy.No.88/58 of Vellor Village was acquired from the petitioner based on notification dated 9.3.1989. The petitioner did not think it proper to challenge the award passed in the case through a timely request for reference under S.18. However, other parties, whose similar lands were acquired as part of the same notification, made request for reference and one of them resulted in L.A.R. No.20 of 1990 of Sub Court, Payyannur. The Reference Court enhanced compensation to the claimant therein. The petitioner then moved an application under S.28 A of the Act on 14.12.1995; but it was rejected as time barred being one filed beyond three months from the date of decision in L.A.R. No. 20 of 1990. Later on the petitioner came to know that enhancement was allowed to another claimant also in L.A.R. No. 4 of 1995 with reference to the earlier decision in L.A.R. No.20 of 1990. This time he filed an application under S.28A before the District Collector within three months from the decision in L.A.R. No. 4 of 1995 itself. This was rejected as per Ext. P3 by the Special Tahsildar (LA) NH, Cannanore on the ground that only one application can be entertained under S.28A of the Act and that the application filed on 8.4.1997 being the second one cannot be entertained.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the stand taken by the first respondent is against the good intentions and spirit of the amendment introducing new S.28A and that the inhibition mentioned in the decision in Union of India's case (supra) is only against filing of a second application when a validly filed first application had already been disposed of on the merits.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.