IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2010 / 9TH ASHADHA 1932 RP.No. 498 of 2010(P) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.11347/2010 Dated 31/03/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): /1ST RESPONDENT : ---------------------- THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), GRETER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KOCHI-20. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER RESPONDENT(S): /WRIT PETITIONER : --------------- P.C.MATHEW, S/O.LATE PLEMEENA, AGED 72, RESIDING AT POTHADI HOUSE, RIVER LANDING ROAD, VADUTHALA, KOCHI - 23. ADV. SRI.S.SUJIN FOR R THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- R.P.No.498 of 2010 in W.P.(C.) No.11347 of 2010 (P) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 30th day of June, 2010 O R D E R The writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 31/03/2010 on the basis that the land, which is the subject matter of the writ petition, was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. It is on that basis, representation claiming compensation was ordered to be considered. 2. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that there was no 4(1) notification in respect of the land in question and there was no acquisition proceedings as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. 3. Therefore, the premise on which the judgment was rendered is under dispute. Such being the controversy in the writ petition, the writ petition could not have been decided at the admission stage and without the respondents in the writ petition filing counter affidavit. R.P. No.498/2010 -2- Therefore, I am satisfied that the judgment is vitiated by error apparently on the face of it. For that reason, this review petition is allowed and the judgment dated 31/03/2010 in WP(C) No.11347/2010 is recalled. Post the writ petition for admission. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg