IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2008 / 28TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 25005 of 2008(B) -------------------------- LAR.157/2003 of SUB COURT, CHERTHALA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ JOYICHAN, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.OUSEPH, PANICKASSERIL, PALLIPURAM.P.O, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR (L.A), INDUSTRIAL GROWTH CENTRE CHERTHALA. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.I.D.C, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY G.P. SRI.BASANTH BALAJI (R1) BY S.C. SRI. JOBY CYRIAC ( KSIDC) (R2) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,J. ------------------------ W.P.(C)No.25005 of 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT The learned Government Pleader Sri.Basanth Balaji takes notice on behalf of the first respondent. Sri.Joby Cyriac, the learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the second respondent. 2. Heard both sides. Under challenge in this writ petition under Article 226 is Ext.P3 judgment of the land acquisition reference court declining to answer the reference on the ground that the reference in as much as the same has been made not on the basis of a valid application for reference. The learned Subordinate Judge has referred to and relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in Pathootty v. District Collector (2004 (3) KLT 348) for holding that the reference (Ext.P2) made by the Land acquisition Officer on the basis of Ext.P1 statement filed by the petitioner is not a valid reference. It appears to me that a subsequent judgment of another Division Bench of this court, authored by the same senior judge who WPC.No.25005/2008 2 authored the judgment in Pathootty's case (supra), in Antony v. State of Kerala (2005 (1) KLT 583) is a more apposite precedent governing the fact situation which obtains in this case. It appears to me that if Antony's case was cited before her, the learned sub judge would have become inclined to take different view . I dispose of this writ petition without deciding the merits of the grounds raised permitting the petitioner to seek review of Ext.P3 judgment and Ext.P4 decree on the basis of the judgment in Antony's case. If the petitioner files a review petition as permitted above within 10 days from today, the review petition will be entertained by the learned Subordinate Judge and the same will be disposed of on merits without delay. (PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE) dpk