IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 14TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 23RD BHADRA 1931 RP.No. 608 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.9094/2009 Dated 01/04/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. SHRI.C.J.ANTONY,AGED 68 YEARS, S/O.OUSEPH(LEGAL HEIRS AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF LATE.REV.FR.PAUL CHAKKIATH),CHAKKIATH HOUSE, KARUKUTTY,ERNAKULAM. 2. SR.ANEESYA, AGED 76 YEARS,D/O.JOSEPH, REP.BY POWER OF ATTORNEY SHRI.C.J.ANTONY. -DO- 3. JESSY,AGED 42 YEARS,D/O.POULOSE, REP.BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SHRI.C.J.ANTONY. -DO- BY ADV. SRI.VINCENT RAPHAEL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY CHIEF SECRETARY. 2. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,EDAMALAYAR,IRRIGATION PROJECT ANGAMALY. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== R.P.No. 608 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 14th day of September, 2009 O R D E R This review petition is filed by the petitioners in the writ petition seeking review of my judgment dated 1.4.2009. By that judgment, I dismissed the writ petition holding that the petitioners' application under Section 18 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act for reference of their claim for enhanced compensation to the court is barred by limitation. The petitioners have now produced Annexure 4 copy of petition dated 13.9.2003 filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act. Notice was received by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners only on 26.8.2003 and therefore, Annexure 4 application made under Section 18 is within time is the contention raised. According to the petitioners, Annexure 4 was not with them at the time of disposal of the writ petition, which was obtained by them by resort to proceedings under the Right to Information Act. Since the failure to produce the same was because of circumstances beyond their control, the petitioners seek review of my judgment dated 1.4.2009. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. The Government Pleader does not dispute Annexure 4 application and receipt thereof in time. In fact Annexure 4 is a copy of R.P.608/09 2 the application submitted by the original owner of the property. That being so, Annexure 4 application for reference filed under Section 18 has been submitted within time. In view of the said fact, I allow this review petition and recall my judgment dated 1.4.2009. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge