IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2009 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 RP.No. 756 of 2008() --------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN LAA.355/2004 Dated 24/09/2007 ............................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/APPELLANT ------------------------------------------ P.V.IBRAHIM, S/O VEERAN KUTTY, PULIKKAKATHU HOUSE, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR (PO), S.KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sou. KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------- C.M. Appln. No.1349/2008 And R.P.No. 756 of 2008 in L.A.A.No.355/2004 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2009. O R D E R HARUN-UL-RASHID This petition is filed for condonation of delay of 134 days in filing the review petition. This court by judgment dated 24th September, 2007 partly allowed the appeal and refixed the land value at Rs.98,800/- per Are taking into account the land value fixed in similar references cases. This court also found that there is no independent evidence for granting additional compensation for value of improvements. 2. In the review petition the petitioner contended that the dismissal of his claim for enhancement for value of improvements is liable to be reviewed. According to him, his oral evidence in support of his claim for enhanced compensation for value of improvements should have been acted upon by this court. R.P.No. 756/2008 2 3. Perused the affidavit and application for delay condonation. There is no satisfactory explanation for not filing the review petition in time. The petition was heard and disposed of in the presence of review petitioner. The reason stated in paragraph 2 for condoning delay are not satisfactory. There is no satisfactory explanation for condoning delay. The question was decided on merits on the basis of materials on record. The same question has been re agitated in the review petition. The review petitioner is also heard on merit. We find that there is no merit in claming additional compensation for value of improvements. In view of the above said facts the petition for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently the review petition also dismissed. (KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE) (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) sou