IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2009 / 18TH ASHADHA 1931 FAO.No. 352 of 2007() --------------------- LAR.162/2001 of ADL.SUB COURT, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT(S): REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EYYAPPALLI JANAKI, D/O. KANNAN, AGED 62 YEARS, KOLANGARAYATH HOUSE, P.O.KEEZHALLUR THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.PAVITHRAN SRI.M.P.JAYANANDAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------------------- THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), AIRPORT, KANNUR AT MATTANUR. SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. R. RAKSHMI NARAYAN. THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - F.A.O. No. 352 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT Raman, J, Appeal arises out of the order passed by the Land Acquisition Court in the review petition filed in L.A.R. 162 of 2001. The review was filed by the State. Appellant's land along with other lands belonged to the neighbouring owners were acquired for a public purpose. Compensation was awarded. Dissatisfied with the same, the appellant filed land acquisition reference and by a common judgment the reference was disposed of. 2. L.A.R. 162 of 2001 pertains to the case of the appellant. The Land Acquisition Court found that the claimant is entitled to Rs.1,18,200/- as additional compensation by way of land value with 30% solatium, 12% addition from 15.5.1998 to 30.11.2000 (931 days), 9% interest for a period of one year from 12.12.2000 and thereafter at 15% per annum till such F.A.O. 352/2007. 2 payment. Solatium will carry interest. Likewise orders were passed in all LAR cases. 3. Review petition was filed since while granting additional compensation, amount already paid to the claimant was not seen deducted. As a result, the claimant will be entitled to double the amount. Thus arose an error apparent on the face of the record, which was corrected by the land acquisition court on being put to notice by filing a review application. The appellant contended that the review application is belated and without containing the details, the review ought not have been entertained. 4. It must be seen that the amount to be paid to the appellant is from the exchequer and public money. True that the appellant is entitled for compensation in accordance with law. But when a mistake is committed by the court in not deducting the amount already paid, the appellant has no legal grievance to be made. Further, such glaring mistake could even be corrected by suo motu review, for which no period of limitation is prescribed. F.A.O. 352/2007. 3 That being the case, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the same. P.R. Raman, Judge P. Bhavadasan, Judge sb.