IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH OCTOBER 2009 / 17TH ASWINA 1931 RP.No. 959 of 2009(M) IN W.P.(C).20080 OF 2008 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.20080/2008 Dated 19/08/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS: --------------------------------- 1. E.J.JACOB, S/O.CHACKO KOCHUCHACKO,ELANJICKAL, PIRALASSERI MURI, MULAKKUZHA. 2. E.J.SUSANNA, S/O.CHACKO KOCHUCHACKO,ELANJICKAL, PIRALASSERI MURI, MULAKKUZHA. 3. E.JACOB VARGHESE, S/O.CHACKO KOCHUCHACKO, RESIDING AT ELANJICKAL HOUSE, THURUTHY PO, CHANGANACHERRY FROM ,ELANJICKAL, PIRALASSERI MURI, MULAKKUZHA BY ADV. SRI.K.SABU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- KERALA STATE REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- R.P.NO.959 OF 2009 IN W.P.(C).NO.20080 OF 2008 (M) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of October, 2009 O R D E R The above petition has been filed to review the judgment dated 19.8.2009 passed by this Court in W.P.(C).No.20080 of 2008. Petitioners in the writ petition are the review petitioners. In the writ petition, they challenged Ext.P9 order passed by the learned Sub Judge, Thiruvalla, in an execution proceedings relating to the realisation of the decree debts in three land acquisition reforms cases. Statement of accounts were filed both by the decree holders and the judgment debtor State. After verification of such statement of accounts, the execution court determined the balance amount required to be deposited by the judgment debtor State to satisfy the decree in the execution petitions. Statement of accounts prepared by the decree holders should have been accepted as such and wrong principles contrary to those laid down by the apex court R.P.959/09 2 were followed by the learned Sub Judge in passing Ext.P9 order, was the challenge raised in the writ petition to set aside Ext.P9 order of the learned Sub Judge and issue of writ/direction to the court below for acceptance of Exts.P1 to P3 calculation statements filed by the decree holders. After hearing both sides, and after being satisfied that the court below has followed correctly the guidelines given in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India ((2006 (8) SCC 457) in the scrutiny of the statements filed by both sides and passing of Ext.P9 order in fixing the balance amount to be deposited by the judgment debtor to satisfy the decree debts, the writ petition was dismissed by judgment dated 19.8.2009. Now the review petition has been filed by the petitioners contending that the court below has not complied with the directions and orders in two judgments rendered by this Court in two previous writ petitions, copies of which are annexed as Annexure A4 and A5 with the petition, in passing of Ext.P9 order. Ext.P9 order does not reveal whether the judgment debtor had complied with the directions in Annexure A4 and A5 judgments passed by this Court previously, and so much R.P.959/09 3 so, the judgments rendered by this Court in the present writ petition is vitiated by the error apparent on the face of the records, is the case canvassed for review of that judgment. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. I find no merit in the grounds canvassed for review of the judgment. In the writ petition, petitioners had no case as to the noncompliance of the directions in Annexure A4 and A5 judgments by the Sub court in passing Ext.P9 order. They had advanced a case that Ext.P9 order was passed not following the guidelines laid down by the apex court in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India ((2006 (8) SCC 457). The challenge so mooted was found meritless after examining Ext.P9 order and the submissions made by both sides at the time of hearing of the petition. The review is not an appeal in disguise. A review petition can be entertained only on the grounds of discovery of new and important matter of evidence, or mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason for granting a review. A case which was not canvassed by the petitioners in the writ petition cannot be set R.P.959/09 4 forth as a ground for review to impeach it as tainted with some mistakes, especially when the party has no case that the present ground canvassed was not known earlier when the case was heard and disposed. It appears that the petitioners want to build a new case on the basis of some observations/directions given in the judgments rendered in writ petitions earlier to the decision of the apex court in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India ((2006 (8) SCC 457). How the quantum of compensation with solatium, interest and cost in a land acquisition case has to be determined and given effect to and what are the principles to be applied in such fixation of quantum at various stages, has been laid down by the apex court in the above decision settling the conflicting views expressed in earlier judicial pronouncements. The review petitioners/decree holders having failed to substantiate the challenge against Ext.P9 order of the learned Sub Judge in fixing the balance amount due after verification of the statement of accounts filed by the parties, with such challenge negatived by the judgment rendered by this Court in the writ petition, it seems, desire to reopen the whole issue again, not R.P.959/09 5 on the basis of the challenges canvassed in the writ petition, but, on an entire different case based on Annexure A4 and A5 judgments, and that cannot be permitted under law. The review petition is devoid of any merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp