along with another copy of the above judgment which was applied for on 30.9.2000, the very day on which the award was passed by the reference court in LAR No.105 of 1998. The Land Acquisition Officer rejected the application under Section 28A not on the ground of limitation, but the rejection was on the ground that the property is covered by LAR No.105 of 1998 and the property under acquisition belonging to the appellant were included by the Land Acquisition Officer in two different categories. The above approach of the Land Acquisition Officer was not correct, in view of the judgment of this Court in Purushan v State of Kerala (2005(1) KLT 687). This was why the appellant applied for a reference under Section 28A(3). The application was granted and the case was registered under Section 28A(3) by the reference court. Before the reference court, as the records of the Land Acquisition Officer (records pertaining to the application under Section 28A were not available, the appellant produced a fresh certified copy of the judgment in LAR No.105/1998 obtained on the basis of an application submitted on 6.1.2001. If the original application under Section 28A was filed on the basis of the above certified
