The petitioner has filed this writ petition aggrieved by Ext.P8 order of the second respondent by which an application submitted by him under section 28A has been rejected. The application of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that, the land of the petitioner as well as the land in the judgment that was relied upon do not belong the same category. The above reasoning is unsustainable, in view of the dictum laid down by this Court in Raghava Poduval v. Special Tahsildar [2004 KHC 1120]. It has been held in paragraph 5 of the judgment as follows: To maintain an application under S.28A, the statutory requirements are only that the applicants award as well as the award of the party to the judgment which is relied on by the applicant should have been covered by the very same 4(1) notification and it is not necessary that both the parties should have been given the same rate of Sand value by the awarding officer. On the above view I hold that the Land acquisition Officer as well as the W.P.(C).No.31625 of 2013 2 reference court were not justified in insisting that the Land Acquisition Officer should originally have awarded the same land value for the appellant and to the party in the judgment relied by him and that both the lands should have been under the same category as per the revenue records. What is required is only that both the lands should have been covered by the very same 4(1) notification.
2. In view of the above dictum, Ext.P8 is held to be unsustainable. The same is therefore set aside.
This writ petition is allowed. The second respondent is directed to consider the application of the petitioner afresh and to pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of six weeks of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
rkc.