IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2009 / 12TH ASHADHA 1931 RP.No. 646 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST LAA NOS.1276 AND 1373/2000 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ----------------------------------------- JUSTINE SREEDHARAN, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANAN VAIDYAR, MALAPPARAMBA HOUSING COLONY, P.O. MALAPPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), N.H.NO.1, KOZHIKODE, CIVIL STATION, CALICUT. BY G.P. SRI. K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- C.M.Appl. No.942 of 2009 & R.P.No.646 of 2009 in L.A.A.Nos.1276 & 1373 of 2000 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2009 ORDER Sasidharan Nambiar,J. This review petition is filed to review the common judgment in L.A.A.Nos.1276 & 1373 of 2000 dated 23/2/2005. There is a delay of 1064 days in filing the review petition. It is sought to be condoned on the ground that the petitioner is laid up due to rheumatic arthritis. A certificate to that effect from a Medical Officer (Rtd.) is produced whereunder the petitioner is advised to take complete rest for a period from 2/4/2005 to 28/2/2008. The judgment is sought to be reviewed for the reason that in respect of the neighbouring properties acquired under the same Notification, an award was passed which was challenged before this Court in L.A.A.No.168/2003 and other R.P.No.646 of 2009 -: 2 :- connected appeals and this Court has remanded the L.A.R. cases for fresh disposal and therefore the judgment is to be reviewed. 2. While dismissing the appeals, this Court has taken note of the judgment in L.A.A.No.950/2002 which was filed challenging the award passed in L.A.R.No.54/1998 by the same court, which was in respect of the similar properties acquired under the very same Notification and also from the same village. It was found that in that case Land Acquisition Officer had awarded a land value at the rate of Rs.3,427/- per cent and the land acquisition court enhanced it to Rs.12,000/-. In L.A.A.No.950/2002 that enhanced compensation was upheld. It is taking note of this, judgment in L.A.A.Nos. 1276 & 1373 of 2000 filed by the Government, challenging the enhancement granted by the land acquisition court, the appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the insufficiency of the compensation awarded was dismissed. If petitioner is aggrieved by the said decision, his remedy is to challenge the judgment before the Supreme Court and not prefer a review petition. Scope of a review is converted to that of an appeal. R.P.No.646 of 2009 -: 3 :- 3. As there is no merit in the review petition itself, we find no necessity to condone the inordinate delay. Both the petitions are dismissed. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge R.P.No.646 of 2009 -: 4 :-