IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2010 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1931 RP.No. 158 of 2010 © IN L.A.A.92/08 -------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN LAA.92/2008 Dated 09/09/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT ----------------------------------------- LEKHAKUMARI,D/O.SETHU AMMA, VAYALNIKATHIYA PUTHEN VEEDU,VAYYAMOOLA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.NOW RESIDING AT VISAKHAM, EDAPANAYIL VEEDU,VAYYAMOOLA,VALLAKADAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.M.HEMALATHA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR,COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. TRIVANDRUM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,C/O.INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT GOVT.OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------- RP. No. 158 of 2010 in LAA. No. 92 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of March, 2010 O R D E R Pius C. Kuriakose, J. The appellant claimant seeks review of our judgment on the ground that in several other cases such as LAA. Nos. 1498 of 2007, 651 of 2009, 757 of 2009 and 23 of 2009 this court had re-fixed the value of the lands identical to the land under acquisition, i.e., the lands included in category 8 and acquired for the purpose of International Airport, Trivandrum at Rs.1 lakh per Are. Smt. Latha T.Thankappan, Senior Govt. Pleader does not dispute the correctness of the above submission. But she submits that the decision taken in subsequent judgments cannot be good ground for reviewing earlier judgment. Technically the submission of the learned Govt. Pleader is correct. But we keep in mind the legislative objectives underlying provisions such as Section 28-A and are inclined to award the same RP. 158/10 - 2 - compensation to the review petitioner. Hence the RP is allowed and revised judgment is passed re-fixing the value of the land under acquisition at Rs.1 lakh per Are. The parties are directed to suffer their costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE ksv/-