IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2010 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1931 RP.No. 1189 of 2009(T) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.24798/2009 Dated 01/10/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT NO.4 ------------------------------------- THE KALPETTA MUNICIPALITY REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, KALPETTA, WAYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.JOE JOSEPH KOCHIKUNNEL RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- 1. M.MOHANDAS, 'MOHANAM'PINNAGODE ROAD, KALPETTA, WAYANAND. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE ADDITONAL SECRETARY, (GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMETN) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, TRIVANDRUM. 4. DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER, KALPETTA WAYANAD BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2010, ALONG WITH R.P.NO.84 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- R.P.Nos.1189 OF 2009 & 84 OF 2010 IN W.P(C).No.24798 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of March, 2010 O R D E R R.P.No.84/10 is filed by the State and R.P.No.1189/09 is by the local authority. Both these review petitions are filed on the ground that the judgment sought to be reviewed affects a land involved in the notification. The judgment sought to be reviewed was subjected to another review petition at the instance of the State. See Secretary to Government v. Nazar [2010 (1) KLT 286]. Following that, these review petitions should only be dismissed because the subject matter of the writ petition is an item of land which falls within an alignment for a road, even going by the submission of the review petitioner. Therefore, without notification for acquisition having been issued, which is an admitted fact situation, the impugned judgment stands. These review petitions are hence dismissed. No costs. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.4/03.