IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2010 / 12TH JYAISTHA 1932 CRP.No. 130 of 2010() --------------------- LAR.73/2008 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: CLAIMANT ----------------------------- G.K.JINAN, S/O.KESVAN, @ KESAVAN VAIDYAR, RESIDING AT CHANDRIKA BHAVAN, IRINJALAKUDA, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER HOLDER K.S.MANGAL. BY ADV. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR SMT.V.SHYLAJA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LA) IGTT,VALLARPADAM, ELOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, COCHIN PORT TRUST, WILLINGDONE ISLAND, KOCHI-3. ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R2 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R2 SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI FOR R2 SRI.P.BENNY P. THOMAS FOR R2 SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON FOR R2 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2010, ALONG WITH CRP.No.131 & 132/2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.Nos.130, 131 and 132 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 02nd day of June, 2010 ORDER These revision petitions arise from the common order passed by learned Sub Judge, Ernakulam refusing to review the order closing land acquisition reference cases observing that petitioners are not entitled to get any enhanced compensation. The applications for review are filed with applications to condone the delay of 219 days. 2. According to the petitioners their land was acquired for Vallarppadam terminal project and receiving the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer under protest they sought reference of their claim to the reference court and accordingly the cases came to the reference court. While the cases were pending in the reference court, there was an out of court settlement between petitioners and State Government as per which State Government agreed to give land value at the rate of Rs.29,500/- per cent. In view of that settlement, petitioners did not want to pursue the reference cases. According to learned counsel a representation to that effect was made by learned counsel for petitioners in the court below. Whatever that be, learned Sub Judge has closed the C.R.P.Nos.130, 131 and 132 of 2010 : 2 : reference cases observing that petitioners are not entitled to get enhanced compensation and that they have received land value at the rate of Rs.29,500/- per cent from the State Government. Learned counsel submits that after the reference cases were closed petitioners approached District Collector concerned, but they were not able to get the agreed rate for the reason of observation made in order of reference court that they are not entitled to get any enhanced compensation. The District Collector refused to award land value at the agreed rate on account of the said observation. They were constrained to approach the reference court with applications for review accompanied by applications for delay of 219 days. Applications were opposed by Government Pleader. Court below observed that petitioners already have obtained land value at the rate of Rs.29,500/- per cent as agreed between them and the State Government and that their attempt in seeking review of the award is to get further enhanced compensation from the court which is not permissible. Learned counsel for petitioners states before me that petitioners do not want any enhanced compensation from the reference court in view of the settlement reached between petitioner and State Government and that their grievance is limited to the observation made by the learned Sub Judge that they are not entitled to any enhanced compensation. C.R.P.Nos.130, 131 and 132 of 2010 : 3 : 3. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and standing counsel for respondent No.2. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I do not find reason to think that reference cases were allowed to be closed by the petitioners with a view to get enhanced compensation from the court apart from the land value fixed by the State Government by negotiation. I do not also find reason to think that petitioners purposely delayed the application for review in that they did not stand to gain by causing the delay. Now the situation is that petitioners are not getting enhanced compensation since reference cases are closed and State Government is refusing to pay the agreed land value because the reference cases are closed with the observation that petitioners are not entitled to get any enhanced compensation. That situation cannot be allow to continue. I am inclined to allow the applications for review as well as applications to condone the delay. Accordingly these revision petitions are allowed, impugned common order is set aside and applications for review/condonation of delay are allowed. Learned Sub Judge shall reopen the reference cases and pass appropriate orders in view of the submission made by learned counsel for petitioners that they are satisfied with the land value fixed by the State Government by C.R.P.Nos.130, 131 and 132 of 2010 : 4 : negotiation with petitioners and that what they are aggrieved by the observation made by learned Sub Judge that petitioners are not entitled to get any further enhancement. Parties shall appear in the court of learned Sub Judge on 30-06-2010. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-