P.V. Thomas vs Spl. Tahsildar

G. Sasidharan, J.—The property acquired belonged to the father of the petitioner. In LAR 201/ 87 the Sub Court, Payyannur enhanced the compensation on reference made to that court. Since the land in question involved in LAR 201/87 was also acquired under the same notification as per which the property of the father of the petitioner was acquired, the father of the petitioner filed an application u/s 28A of the Land Acquisition Act for redetermination of the quantum of compensation on the basis of the award in the above Land Acquisition Reference. Subsequently, the Sub Court, Payyannur passed an award in LAR 120/87 directing enhancement of compensation. Then the petitioner filed an application u/s 28 A of Land Acquisition Act for re-determination of the award on the basis of the award passed in LAR 120/87. Petitioner filed the application for re-determination of the award after the death of his father.

The question which arises for consideration is whether the petitioner can file an application u/s 28 A of Land Acquisition Act in spite of the fact that his father also had filed an application for re-determination of compensation on the basis of a prior award passed by the Sub Judge in a Land Acquisition Reference. The submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner did not get notice of the proceedings in pursuance of the application filed by his father. The learned Government Pleader on instructions would submit that the address given in the application filed by the father was "C/o K.M. Augustine, Advocate, Payyannur" and notice was issued in that address. It is also stated by the Government Pleader that the award passed on re-determining the compensation on the application of father was approved by the District Collector on 25.05.1999 and that it was announced on 7.6.1999. In Union of India and another Vs. Pradeep Kumari and others, it was held that only one application can be moved under Sec. 28A for re-determination of compensation by the applicant. This is a case in which the first application for re-determination of compensation was filed by the father of the petitioner to whom the property originally belonged. After his death, the petitioner filed a second application for re-determination of the compensation on the basis of a subsequent award passed by the Sub Judge, Payyannur. It is not necessary that the application filed u/s 28A of the Land Acquisition Act has to be on the basis of the first award passed enhancing compensation in a reference case. The application filed u/s 28A of Land Acquisition Act can be on the basis of any subsequent award passed on reference. But that does not mean that one can go on filing applications for re-determination of the compensation u/s 28A of the Land Acquisition Act as and when awards are passed enhancing compensation. Here, the father had already filed an application u/s 28 A of Land Acquisition Act and after his death his legal heir cannot file another application u/s 28 A on the basis of a subsequent award enhancing compensation. Hence there is no merit in this Original Petition and it is liable to be dismissed.

The Original Petition is hence dismissed.