T.P.THANKAPPAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.08.2009 in L.A.R.No.2 of 2009 passed by the learned Principal Sub Judge, Kottayam.

(2.) Appellants are the claimants in a proceeding under Section 28A (3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, for short, the 'Act' before the Principal Sub Court, Kottayam. Their claim related to acquisition of 31.32 ares of land in Survey No.661/1 of Velloor Village, for a public purpose. The above land was taken possession on 08.11.1978 and award No.82/1980 was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 01.04.1981 fixing land value at Rs.361/- per are. Claimants accepted the compensation without protest. Later, enhanced compensation was granted to another, whose land was acquired under the same notification, on a reference made to the Sub Court, Kottayam, in L.A.R.No.60 of 1986. Claimants thereupon moved an application under Section 28A of the Act for providing them enhanced compensation on the basis of revised land value fixed by the court. That application was rejected by Order dated 15.03.1989 by the Special Deputy Collector (LA), Vaikom. Subsequently in another reference at the instance of another party over the land acquired from him under the same notification and award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, in L.A.R.No.21 of 1992 the Sub court granted him enhanced compensation re-fixing the land value. Claimants thereupon again moved an application under Section 28A of the Act seeking re-fixation of land value for the land acquired from them on the basis of the judgment in L.A.R.No.21 of 1992. That application was rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer by Order dated 29.11.2006. On the reference application moved by claimants, the claim was referred under Section 28A (3) of the Act to the Sub Court, and it was numbered as L.A.R.No.2 of 2007. Learned Sub Judge dismissed their claim holding that the second application moved under Section 28A of the Act for re-determination of the land value was not maintainable. Challenge in the appeal is against that judgment rendered by the learned Sub Judge.

(3.) I heard learned counsel for claimants and also learned Govt. Pleader. Dismissal of the first application moved by claimants under Section 28A of the Act based on the judgment rendered in L.A.R.No.60 of 1986 by the Sub Court, Kottayam would no way debar the claimants from moving another application based on the judgment rendered in another reference, L.A.R.No.21 of 1992, by the same court, is the submission of their learned counsel. First application was dismissed as 'time barred' and there was no decision on merits of that application is the further submission of the counsel to contend that the second application based on judgment rendered in another reference by the Sub Court required consideration on merits. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision rendered by this Court in Madhavi v. Special Tahsildar,2003 KHC 137) to contend that when the first application was dismissed on a technical ground, the second application based on decision rendered in another reference is valid and it has to be decided on its merits.