IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2010 / 21ST ASHADHA 1932 RP.No. 620 of 2010(N) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.2335/2010 Dated 17/03/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER IN WPC --------------------------------------- JOHN JACOB, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.LATE P.P.JACOB, PROPRIETOR, M/S.PEPTURN INDIA, RESIDING AT MATTAKKEL PERUMAL BHAVAN, COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SMT.THARA THAMBAN SRI.B.BIPIN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN WPC --------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CHAIRMAN (PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (INDUSTRIES)), CHANGANASSERY INDUSTRIAL ESTATE SINGLE WINDOW CLEARANCE BOARD, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. THE SECRETARY, VAZHAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN 686104. MR.ARAVIND KUMAR BABU, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- R.P.No.620 of 2010 in W.P.(C.) No.2335 of 2010 (N) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 12th day of July, 2010 O R D E R Relying on Annexure A1 agreement allegedly executed by the petitioner and the owner of land on 31/10/2007, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the findings in paragraph 5 of the judgment that the petitioner has no title or claim over the land identified by the Panchayat for acquisition is incorrect. On that ground, learned counsel seeks review of the judgment. 2. The issue raised in the writ petition was that clearance for setting up an industry was declined on the ground that the water source identified by the petitioner was one identified by the Panchayat for acquisition. Therefore, even if there is an agreement, which is said to be executed between the petitioner and the land owner, since the land in question is identified for acquisition under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, the existence of the agreement would not have made any impact on the conclusion in R.P.No.620/2010 in WP(C) No.2335/2010 -2- the judgment. Even otherwise, the case was decided on the materials produced, and the arguments advanced and Annexure A1 agreement now relied on were not a part of record in the writ petition. Therefore, I am not persuaded to review the judgment. The review petition is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg