IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2010 / 27TH JYAISTHA 1932 RP.No. 293 of 2010(P) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.4943/2010 Dated 16/02/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONERS ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. HASNA, W/O. MAHAMMOOD,'HASNAS', PO MUZHAPPILANGAD,NEAR MAIDU BRIDGE,KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. JASIR AHAMMED.M.C,S/O.MAHAMMOOD, 'HASNAS',PO MUZHAPPILANGAD,NEAR MAIDU BRIDGE, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. SABITHA.K.P,W/O.AHAMMED, 'HASNAS',PO MUZHAPPILANGAD,NEAR MAIDU BRIDGE, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.K.K.CHANDRALEKHA SRI.GOPAKUMAR G. (ALUVA) RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------ 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER(NATIONAL HIGHWAY) PWD OFFICE, PUBLIC OFFICE COMPLEX, MUSEUM ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAMN. ADV. SRI.THOMAS ANTONY FOR R1 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- R.P.No.293/2010 in WPC.No.4943/2010(P) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of June, 2010 O R D E R Heard the Standing counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. 2. Writ petition was filed praying for a direction to the respondent to consider the alternate proposal made by the writ petitioner. By judgment dated 10th February, 2010, case was disposed of on the basis that the acquisition in question is under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 and that the petitioner has to raise his objections once notification under Section 3A is issued. 3. However, it is now disclosed that the acquisition in question is not under the National Highways Act and is under the Land Acquisition Act. In view of this, the judgment rendered is vitiated for an error apparent on the face of it. 4. Therefore, the review is allowed and the judgment is recalled. Post the Writ Petition for admission. (ANTONY DOMINIC) WPC.No. /09 :2 : JUDGE vi/