IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2008 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1930 RP.No. 457 of 2008(G) --------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.10773/2006 Dated 24/01/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS - PETITIONERS: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. M.K.SAJEEV,MAKKAPARAMBIL, KUZHUPPILLIL,AYYAMPILLI P.O. 2. K.A.AYSHA BEEVI,S/O.ABDUL RAZAK, VALIYAVEETTIL,T.A.BEERANKUNJU ROAD, COCHIN-18. 3. A.J.SHANAVAS,AMMANAMVEETTIL,A.S.SYED MOHAMMED ROAD,EDAVANAKKAD P.O. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL RESPONDENTS - RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,PWD (ROADS & BRIDGES) ERNAKULAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU,COCHIN. 4. THE TAHSILDAR (LA) CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU,COCHIN. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI BASANT BALAJI THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P NO.457 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 8th day of April, 2008 O R D E R ------------- Review Petition is filed by the petitioners in W.P(C) No.10773 of 2006. The challenge in the Writ Petition was against the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act by the respondents. Government accorded administrative sanction for strengthening and widening 8 bridges in Vypin-Munambam route. Notification read with Section 17(4) was issued. Challenging that notification Review Petitioners filed the Writ Petition. It is true that in the Writ Petition a ground was raised contending that there was no need to invoke the urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act. During the course of argument, learned Government Pleader submitted that work was undertaken as per the directions of this Court in W.P(C) No.20388 of 2004. According to the State to comply with the directions, urgency clause was invoked. That point was not elaborately argued at the time of arguments in view of the explanation offered by the learned R.P. NO.457 OF 2008 -: 2 :- Government Pleader and hence the same was not discussed in the judgment also. Since the facts pointed out by the learned Government Pleader fully justified the invocation of the urgency clause, this Court did not quash the notification issued under section 17(4) of the Act. So I do not find any reason to review the judgment passed by this Court. 2. Learned Government Pleader submitted that in this case award enquiry was conducted and also an award was passed on 1.4.2008. It is also stated that steps were already taken to take possession of the land. 3. There is no merit in the Review Petition and the same is only to be dismissed. In the result, Review Petition is dismissed. K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE. vsv K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. ===================== M.F.A. ===================== J U D G M E N T ------------------------------------------- TH MARCH, 2008