IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 9TH OCTOBER 2009 / 17TH ASWINA 1931 RP.No. 859 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN LAA.408/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER (APPELLANT) -------------------------------------------- YESODAYAMMA GIRIJAMMA, THEKKECHEKKANATTU, PALLIPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.H.RAMANAN SRI.ALEX N.MATHEW (KOLLAM) SRI.JAMES JOSE RESPONDENT(S): (RESPONDENTS) ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A.), INDUSTRIAL GROWTH CENTRE, CHERTHALA. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSIDC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------ RP. No. 859 of 2009 in LAA. No. 408 of 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of October, 2009 O R D E R Pius C. Kuriakose, J. The petitioner appellant seeks review of our judgment on the reason that in a connected matter, where also the property in question did not enjoy direct road frontage, this court became inclined to include that property in category-II. The request therefore is that our judgment be reviewed and the property in question be included in category – II instead of category -III in which it is presently included. Despite the very persuasive submissions of Mr.Ramanan we do not think that any error apparent on the face of the record vitiates our judgment. In fact, it was the argument of Mr.Ramanan before us in the appeal RP.859/09 - 2 - also that the property in question is eligible to be included in category – II on account of the reason that the distance between the property and the Cherthala – Aroor main road is only 50 metres. Even though Mr.Ramanan submitted that the property under acquisition enjoys the frontage of a Panchayat Road, even the Advocate Commissioner's report does not support that argument. At any rate, we do not find any warrant for invocation of the jurisdiction for review which is circumscribed by rule 1 of Order 47 C.P.C. RP stands dismissed. No costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE ksv/-