IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 8TH MAY 2009 / 18TH VAISAKHA 1931 RP.No. 825 of 2007(D) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.28175/2004 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS ---------------------------------------------------- 1. JOSE JOSEPH, PERUMPALLIL HOUSE, AMPARA NIRAPPEL PO, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, P.C.JOSEPH, PERUMPALLIL HOUSE, AMPARA NIRAPPEL PO, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. JOHNYACHAN JOSEPH, NEERAKKAL HOUSE, MUTTUCHIRA PO, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.SHAJI THOMAS PORKKATTIL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN WPC --------------------------------- 1. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALA. 2. LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, (LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. PALA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PALA. ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN FOR R4 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.No.825 OF 2007 IN W.P.(c).No. 28175 OF 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of May , 2009 ORDER The petitioners in the writ petition being aggrieved by the judgment dated 26-03-2007 passed in the writ petition have filed this review petition. The subject matter of the writ petition is the proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of the land belonging to the petitioners for the construction of a bus terminal for the fourth respondent Municipality. On the various grounds raised in the writ petition, the petitioners sought inter alia for the quashment of Ext.B15 order of the Land Revenue Commissioner granting permission for the invocation of the emergency clauses under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act as well as Exts.P9 and P10 notifications issued respectively under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and the Survey Boundaries Act in relation to the acquisition proposal. Ext.P9 is in fact a combined notification under Section 4(1) and Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act. Section RP.No.825/07 2 17(4) was invoked on the strength of Ext.P15 order of the Land Revenue Commissioner. Under the judgment dated 26-03-2007, I considered the pleadings raised by the parties and the rival submissions addressed before me and kept in mind the ratio emerging from the various judicial precedents which were cited before me by Sri.O.V.Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri.V.M.Kurian, learned standing counsel for the contesting requisitioning authority and quashed Ext.P15 holding that there was no justification for invoking the emergency provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring the properties of the petitioners. Nevertheless I permitted the respondent to proceed with the acquisition under the ordinary provisions of the Land Acquisition Act by inviting objections from the petitioners and by conducting enquiry under Section 5 A. 2. In this petition for review the petitioners want review of the judgment so that a fresh judgment allowing the writ petition in full is passed. It is urged through grounds B to E raised in the memorandum of review that the fact situation which obtains in this RP.No.825/07 3 case as has become evident through the admissions in pleadings and the documents placed on record would justify allowing the writ petition in full. It is urged that the ratio of the judgments cited on behalf of the review petitioners particularly of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Kishn Lal Arneja (2004 (8) SCC 453) and that of this court in Dr.Noor Mohammed v. District Collector (1981 KLT 816) were either not properly considered or not considered at all by this court. 3. I have heard the submissions of Sri.O.V.Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and those of Sri.V.M.Kurian, learned standing counsel for the requisitioning authority. The learned senior counsel was assisted by Sri.Shaji Thomas Porkkattil, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri. O.V.Radhakrishnan drew my attention again to Ext.P1, P2, P3, P7 and addressed me very extensively on the various grounds raised in the review petition. My attention was drawn by Sri.O.V.Radhakrishnan again to the judgment of this court in Sreemanunni Nair v. State of Kerala (2002(3) KLT 361) , in S.Nagaraj and others v. State of Karnataka and Another (1993 Supp. RP.No.825/07 4 4 Supreme Court Cases 595), the judgment of the Supreme Court in Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh (1998 (4) SCC 1), in Union of India and others v. Shakuntala Gupta ( dead) by LRs. (2002(7) SCC 98), the judgment of the Full Bench of this court in Padmavathi Amma v. State of Kerala (1983 KLT 29(F.B.), the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Krishan Lal Arneja and others (2004(8) SCC 453) and also the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bharat Singh and others v. State of Hariyana and others (AIR 1988 Supreme Court 2181) in support of various proposition canvassed by him. 4. Sri.V.M.Kurian, learned standing counsel for the requisitioning authority also did not lag behind in citing authorities. Inter alia Sri.V.M.Kurian refer to the judgment of this court in State of Nagaland and Another v. Toulvi Kibami and Another ( 2003(8) Supreme Court Cases 671). 5. I am not persuaded, the very learned submissions of Sri.O.V.Radhakrishnan notwithstanding to hold that there is justification for reviewing my judgment within the contours of this RP.No.825/07 5 court's jurisdiction for reviewing its own orders and judgments. The learned senior counsel was unable to point out any error apparent on the face of the record or to convince me of the existence of reason sufficient for invoking the review jurisdiction. Sri.O.V.Radhakrishnan may have an arguable case before a court of appeal, but the parameters for review are different. 6. According to me, the petitioners cannot have any legitimate grievance against the judgment in as much as Ext.P15 order of the Land Revenue Commissioner according sanction for invocation of the emergency provision was quashed and an enquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act has been ordered by this court. It is open to the petitioners to adduce evidence before the Land Acquisition Officer at that enquiry and convince that officer that the acquisition of their property is not necessary for accomplishment of the purpose projected by the requisitioning authority. The relevant Rules pertaining to conduct of Section 5A enquiry, permit adduction of documentary and even oral evidence. This court has not set any definite time frame for completion of the enquiry though this court has directed the enquiry to RP.No.825/07 6 be completed at the earliest. The petitioners will be permitted by the land acquisition officer at the completion of the enquiry to address arguments based on the grounds raised by them in the writ petition and in this review petition before him. The land acquisition officer will be preparing his report of recommendations regarding the objections raised by the petitioners by referring to the evidence which came on record in the enquiry. If the petitioners are so desirous, they will be afforded hearing opportunity by the Land Revenue Commissioner also, before he takes a decision as to whether the recommendations of the land acquisition officer should be accepted or not. 7. No case is made out for review within the confines of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Review Petition will stand dismissed. However, the following directions are issued to the first respondent- land acquisition officer so that the relief granted to the petitioners under the judgment becomes meaningful and more effective. 1) The first respondent is directed to afford sufficient opportunity to the petitioners for adducing whatever evidence they RP.No.825/07 7 want to at the enquiry under Section 5A permitted under the judgment. 2) The land acquisition officer is directed to hear the petitioners either personally or through counsel before finalising his recommendations regarding the objections raised by them. Written arguments, if any submitted will be accepted by the land acquisition officer. 3) The land acquisition officer is also directed to forward copy of the recommendations to be forwarded by him regarding the objections raised by the petitioners to the acquisition proposal upon culmination of the enquiry under Section 5A to the Land Revenue Commissioner to the petitioners also. 4) If the petitioners are desirous of a hearing opportunity before the Land Revenue Commissioner, they are permitted to request for such an opportunity before the Land Revenue Commissioner and if such a request is made by them within one week of their receiving copies of the recommendations of the Land Acquisition Officer, the Land Revenue Commissioner will grant such opportunity to them before taking decision on the question as to whether the RP.No.825/07 8 recommendations of the Land Acquisition Officer should be accepted or not. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. RP.No.825/07 9