IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2011 / 7TH ASHADHA 1933 RP.No. 475 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN LAA.1097/2008 Dated 30/06/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT -------------------------------- ABDUL RAHIMAN HAJI, THALAKULATHUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JESWIN P.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT ------------------------ THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE ADVOCATE GENERAL,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.V.T.K. MOHANAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/06/2011, ALONG WITH RP.476/11 ETC. THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- RP.475/2011 in LAA. No. 1097/2008, RP.476/11 in LAA. 1683/02, RP. 477/11 in LAA. 189/07, RP.478/11 in LAA. 654/07, RP. 479/11 in LAA.533/07, RP. 480/11 in LAA. 856/05, RP.481/11 in LAA. 873/05 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of June, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. These are all cases where review of our judgment is sought for on the ground that our judgments are vitiated by error apparent on the face of the record. Sri. Jeswin P.Varghese, learned counsel for the review petitioner claimant submitted that this court allowed the appeals and re-fixed the land value at Rs.18,000/- per cent on the basis of the common judgment passed by this court in LAA. Nos. 210/01 and connected matters. According to Mr. Jeswin, the view taken by this court that the issue is covered by earlier judgments and that the rate of Rs.18,000/- per cent is approved by this court is correct only technically. Learned counsel submitted that LAA. 210/01 and connected RP.475/11 -2- matters were all appeals preferred by the Government. What this court has done under the judgment in those appeals was only dismissed the appeal preferred by the Government against the re-fixation of the market value by the reference court at Rs.18,000/- per cent. The approval was only negative approval. These are all cases where the review petitioners wanted to prefer their own appeals or cross objections being not satisfied with the rate fixed by the reference court and claiming more than what is fixed by the reference court in LAA. Nos. 210/01. No adjudication with notice to the claimants as to whether enhancement over and above what was awarded by the reference court was conducted. 2. The submissions of Mr. Jeswin Varghese were opposed by Sri. V.T.K. Mohanan, learned senior Govt. Pleader. He submitted that it is not fully correct to say that in LAA. No. 210/01 series it was only negative approval which was granted by this court to the rate of Rs.18,000/- per cent. The learned Govt. Pleader submitted that RP.475/11 -3- negative or positive, approval by the High Court to a particular rate is binding on the State as well as the claimants whose properties have been acquired pursuant to the very same notification. 3. We have anxiously considered the submissions addressed at the Bar. The question as to whether there is any warrant for invocation of the jurisdiction of this court under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for reviewing its own judgment. The above question in our opinion can be answered in this case only against the revision petitioners. It is not correct to say that in LAA. 210/01 and connected cases this court decided only the appeals preferred by the Government. As a matter of fact, in some of those appeals there was cross objections filed by claimants also. It was considering those appeals and cross objections and after hearing counsel for the claimants also that this court re-fixed market value of identical lands at Rs.18,000/- per cent. The grounds urged in these review petitions will not justify invocation of this Court's narrow RP.475/11 -4- jurisdiction for review which is well delineated by the provisions of Rule 1 of Order 47 CPC. In fact, one of the submissions addressed before us by Sri.Jeswin was that even after the rate of Rs.18,000/- was fixed by this Court in judgment in LAA. no. 210/01 series, the reference court has fixed market value of identical lands at rates much higher than the rate of Rs.18,000/- per cent. The fixation of higher rates and that too by the reference court subsequent to the judgment of this Court can never be a ground for review under Order 47 Rule 1. At any rate, the judgment of the reference court have not attained finality and as submitted by Mr. Mohanan, senior Govt. Pleader it is always open to the Government to challenge those judgments by filing regular appeals. The RPs. are dismissed in limine. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE) ksv/- RP.475/11 -5-