IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2008 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1930 RP.No. 1055 of 2008(Y) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.8604/2006 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- K.PONNAMMA, 72 YEARS W/O.LATE BHASKARAN PILLAI, PAZHAVEETTIL HOUSE, CHATHANNOORPUZHA, VADAKKADATHUKAVU PO., ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ELSY ALEXANDER,KALLOOTT HOUSE VADAKADATHUKAVU PO., KILIVAYAL, ADOOR. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KERALA STATE TRANSPORT PROJECT, KOTTARAKKARA. 3. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KERALA STATE TRANSPORT PROJECT, PATHANAMTHITTA. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI ( R2 AND R3) SRI.K.S.SASIKUMAR (R1) THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,J. ------------------------ R.P. NO.1055/2008 IN W.P.(C)No.8604 OF 2006 ------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of October, 2008 O R D E R The learned counsel for the review petitioner, Sri.M.Sasindran, has addressed me very strenuously. He has placed before me photographs relating to the building in question. He asserted that the building portion presently occupied by the review petitioner as a tenant under the writ petitioner has never been valued and compensation paid to the writ petitioner. On the basis of the photographs, he argued that the building occupied by the review petitioner stands as an independent building. 2. It is not as though the above contention was not considered by me earlier. Today, as directed by me, the learned Government Pleader has placed before me copies of the letter dated 4/4/2006 issued by the Executive Engineer to the Advocate General and letter No.1884/2008/B1 dated 7/8/2008 issued by the land acquisition officer to the Government Pleader. R.P..No.1055/2008 2 A careful reading of these letters will show that the contention of the review petitioner that the building presently under her occupation is not covered by the award is not sustainable. But, the contention that the land, the site upon which the building stands is not covered by the acquisition proceedings is correct. But, as I had indicated in the judgment, the acquisition was much prior to the judgment of the Full Bench of this court in Saramma Itticheriya v. State of Kerala (2008(1) KLT 6) and that is why the land lady has been able to retain ownership over the land (situs of the building occupied by the review petitioner) even when her claim under Section 49 for acquisition of the building(structure) alone has been upheld. The letters referred to herein above will form part of the records. 3. Sri.Sasindran, the learned counsel for the review petitioner requested lastly to extend the time fixed for compliance with the direction in my judgment till 31/3/2008. According to Sri.Sasindran, the students of a nearby college owes substantial amounts to the review petitioner on account of credit facilities enjoyed by them from the Tea shop. There is no serious objection from the side of the writ petitioner. R.P..No.1055/2008 3 Under the above circumstances, even as the Review Petition is dismissed and my judgment is reiterated, it is directed that time for complying with the directions in the judgment is extended till 31/3/2009. (PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE) dpk