The challenge in these writ petitions is against Exts.P7 and P9 orders passed by the 3rd respondent, whereby an application preferred by the petitioners under Section 28A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, was rejected on the ground that the application had to be in Form 22 A, and in the case of the petitioners, it was not. It was further stated that some of the applications had been filed only after the appellate order was passed by the High Court and hence were belated. In the writ petitions, the petitioners contend that the reasons cited by the 3rd respondent in Exts.P7 and P9 orders, has been found as not legally sustainable by an order of the Supreme Court, dated 02.12.2014 in Civil Appeal No.10800/14 and connected cases. The petitioners therefore pray for a direction to the 3rd respondent to reconsider their application, filed under Section 28A(3), after hearing them.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. W.P.(c).Nos.37474 & 37484 of 2015 : 2 :
3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the Bar, I find that the reasons cited in Exts. P7 and P9 orders for rejecting the application filed by the petitioners under Section 28A(3), cannot be legally sustained. As has been noted in the order of the Supreme Court referred to above, the rightful claim of an applicant under Section 28A(3) cannot be rejected by the 3rd respondent on hyper technical grounds. When an application is preferred under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, by a person whose land has been acquired, so as to get the benefit of an award that has been passed in relation to the properties belonging to others persons, which were also acquired in the same acquisition proceeding, the rights of the petitioners under Article 300A of the Constitution of India have to be considered and the applicants have to be extended the benefit of the award passed in favour of other persons similarly situated as the applicants. A hyper technical view cannot be taken in respect of the extension of similar benefits to persons similarly situated in land acquisition proceedings. Accordingly, I quash Exts. P7 and P9 orders in these writ petitions and dispose these writ petitions with a direction to the 3rd respondent to act on the applications submitted by the petitioners, by referring the matter concerning the W.P.(c).Nos.37474 & 37484 of 2015 : 3 :
determination of the compensation for the properties belonging to the petitioners, to the sub court, Payyannur, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE sm/