IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2010 / 1ST SRAVANA 1932 RP.No. 1195 of 2009 IN LAA.515/94 ----------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN LAA.515/1994 Dated 28/08/1997 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA T. THANKAPPAN (SR.) RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT & ADDL.2ND RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. LEELAMMA, W/O.THOMAS, PARAPPEL KAKKANAD, COCHIN-30. 2. COCHIN EXPORTS PROCESSING ZONE REP.BY THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, KAKKANAD, COCHIN-30. R1.- K.J.KURIACHAN R2- MOHAN C. MENON THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. P. No.1195 of 2009 in L. A. A. No.515 of 1994 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2010 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J The state in the R.P. seeks review of the judgment to the extent of correcting the word “cent” as “Are”. It is urged that under the judgment this Court reduced the rates awarded by the Reference Court and re-fixed the value from Rs.4942/- to Rs.3237/- per Are, but by mistake it is stated that the re-fixed value is Rs.3237/- per cent. 2. It is also submitted that the same mistake occurred in the case of lands included in another category where the Reference Court has fixed R. P. No.1195 of 2009 -2- value at the rate of Rs.9854/- per Are and this Court actually reduced the value to Rs.4856/- per Are. But by mistake instead of “Are” the word “cent” is used. 3. We have considered the submissions of Smt.Latha T. Thankappan, the learned senior Government Pleader and Sri.Kuriachan, the learned counsel for the first respondent. Smt.Latha argued on the basis of the grounds of review. Sri.Mohan C. Menon, the learned counsel for the second respondent would support all the submissions of Smt.Latha. He drew our attention to the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent and submitted that by seeking review the Government is only seeking correction of R. P. No.1195 of 2009 -3- mistake which has crept into the judgment inadvertently. Sri.K.J.Kuriachan, the learned counsel for the claimants/respondents drew our attention to the full text of the impugned judgment. According to him, on going through the judgment it will be seen that this Court has consciously re-fixed the value at Rs.3237/- per cent itself. 4. Having given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and having scanned the impugned judgment, we are convinced that this Court has actually interfered with the enhancement granted by the Reference Court and reduced the same. In order that the rates granted are inconformity with the decision actually taken R. P. No.1195 of 2009 -4- by this Court, it is necessary that the review is allowed and the application for correction filed by the claimants are dismissed. Hence, we allow the review as prayed for and dismiss the applications for correction filed by the claimants separately. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-