IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2010 / 29TH ASWINA 1932 RP.No. 882 of 2010(M) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.20964/2009 DATED 06/07/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 IN THE WPC ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. PUNALUR MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, PUNALUR-691305. 2. THE SECRETARY, PUNALUR MUNICIPALITY, PUNALUR-691 305. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT IN THE WPC --------------------------------------------------- 1. LISSY RAJAN, W/O. RAJAN, VETTIPUZHA, PUNALUR, PATHANAMTHITTA-691 305. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. SHRI BECHU KURIAN THOMAS FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI K.SANIL KUMAR FOR R2 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ R.P.No.882/2010 in W.P.(C). No.20964/2009-M ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 21st day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T This Review Petition is filed at the instance of the second and third respondents in the Writ Petition, namely, Punalur Municipality and its Secretary. It is pointed out in the Review Petition that the Municipality is actively considering acquisition of the properties of the petitioners. The same contention is raised in Ground Nos.2 and 3 of the Review Petition. 2. I have already examined the legal issue in the light of the Judgment of this Court in Padmini v. State of Kerala [1999 (3) KLT 465] and that of the Apex Court in Raju S.Jethmalani & Others v. State of Maharashtra & Others [(2005) 11 SCC 222]. It is not a case where the said contention raised in the Review Petition was not examined by this Court while rendering the Judgment. Therefore, there is no apparent error in the Judgment. 3. The learned counsel for the Review Petitioners then submitted that this Court may put some conditions for granting the permit and it is submitted that if the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is issued within six months and if in the meanwhile, the R.P. No.882/2010 -:2:- petitioner in the Writ Petition is putting up the building, the Municipality may be allowed to acquire the property without paying any compensation. By no stretch of imagination, such a contention can be accepted. Therefore, the same is rejected and the Review Petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms \\TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE