IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2010 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 4190 of 2010(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MEETHALE ABDUL MAJEED, S/O.KUNHAMMED, NEAR GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL, ETTIKULAM POST, RAMANTHALI VILLAGE, PAYYANNUR, THALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR SRI.GODWIN JOSE SRI.GEEN T.MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), OFFICE OF THE SPECIA TAHSILDAR, EZHIMALA NAVAL ACADEMY, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. MS.K.R.DEEPA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.4190 of 2010 (W) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 3rd day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T An application was made by the petitioner under section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act. The survey number furnished therein was incorrect. Notice was given to rectify the mistake to rectify the mistake. 2. Going by the instructions of the learned Government Pleader, on 19/01/2009, resurvey Nos.10/11, 6/13 & 77/4 were furnished by the petitioner as the resurvey numbers of his property that was acquired. These were also found to be incorrect, and therefore, by Ext.P2 order dated 05/02/2009 his application was rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner sought a review of the order by filing Exts.P4, and nobody has a case that the Land Acquisition Officer has the power to review his order. That application was also rejected by Ext.P5. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P2 and P5 orders. Evidently Ext.P2 order was passed for the reason that the WP(C) No.4190/2010 -2- survey numbers furnished was incorrect. The petitioner has no case that the survey number furnished was correct. In the absence of any power of review, Ext.P5 order rejecting Ext.P4 application for review also cannot be faulted. Consequently, Exts.P2 and P5 are to be upheld. In that view of the matter, I cannot grant the relief sought for in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg