IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDESDAY, THE 28TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 6TH ASWINA 1933 RP.No. 694 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN LAA.606/2006 Dated 07/07/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/APPELLANT: ------------------------------------------- IBRAHIM, S/O.KUNJUVAVA, VADAKKEMANAPURATHU, ADIYAN MURI, THALAYOLAPARAMBU P.O., VAIKOM. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW PHILIP EDAPPALLIL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.T.T.JOSEPHINA THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ R.P. No. 694 OF 2011 in L.A.A. NO.606 OF 2006 ------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of September, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The appellant in L.A.A. No.606/2006 seeks review of our judgment dated 7/7/2011 to the extent it provides that if the appellant becomes eligible for more compensation than what is awarded under the judgment which is impugned in the appeal, such enhanced compensation will not carry interest otherwise admissible under Section 28 of the Act during the period from 16/6/2005 (the date of the impugned judgment of the Sub Court) till the date of the revised award. 2. Sri.Mathew Philip learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that the above condition in our judgment results in great prejudice to the appellant. It is true that the above condition is likely to result in monetary loss to the appellant. But, we have consciously incorporated such a condition as there was lethargy on the part of the appellant in R.P..No.694/2011 2 adducing evidence for substantiating his claim for enhanced land value. By incorporating such a condition, we were trying to protect the interest of the State involved in the matter. We dismiss this review petition, however clarifying that what has been denied by us is only the statutory interest admissible under Section 28 of the Act on the land value which may be enhanced by the Reference Court under its revised judgment and not the other benefits like the solatum under Section 23 (2) and the amount if any which may be due under Section 23 (1A). PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE. dpk