IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2011 / 6TH ASHADHA 1933 RP.No. 548 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN LAA.362/2008 Dated 08/12/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): IST RESPONDENT ------------------------------------ N.JAYADEVAN, NANDUVILAKOM, T.C.77/2503, VAYYAMOOLA, VALLAKKADAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.M.S.KALESH SRI.V.VINAY MENON SRI.HARISH GOPINATH SRI.M.AJAY (IRUMPANAM) RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT --------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. V.T.K.MOHANAN FOR R1 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- RP. No. 548 of 2010 in LAA. No. 362 of 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of June, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The appellant claimant seeks review of our judgment dated 8-12-2009 on the ground that in spite of due diligence the appellant could not bring to our notice the judgment of this court in LAA. No. 1644 of 2007 and cross objection No. 11 of 2008. It is urged that for the property covered by LAA. no. 1644 of 2007 this Court had fixed the land value at Rs.2 lakhs per Are. It is further urged that the property was inferior to the property under acquisition in the present case. Hence review is sought. 2. The Government has filed a detailed statement of objections to the RP. A reading of the objections will show that exception is taken therein to the claim of the review petitioner that his property is superior to the property covered by LAA. 1644 of 2007 the comparability between that property and review petitioner's property is not seen RP.548 of 2010 -2- seriously disputed by the Government. Having considered the submissions addressed before us by Mr. R.S.Kalkura, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V.T.K.Mohanan, learned senior Govt. Pleader as well as the judgment of this court in LAA. No. 1644 of 2007 and Cross Objections we are convinced that the appellant has made out a good ground for review. In fact, on the day we passed the judgment, on behalf of the claimant review petitioner an adjournment was sought for which we did not grant. The submission of Mr.Kalkura that if adjournment was granted he could have brought to our notice the judgment in LAA. 1644 of 2007 and Cross Objections has some appeal. We recall our judgment and take up the LAA for further hearing and disposal. RP is allowed as above. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) ksv/-