IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2008 / 25TH ASHADHA 1930 RP.No. 1140 of 2007() in CRP No.303 of 2004 --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRP.303/2004 Dated 18/08/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/2ND PETITIONER IN THE CRP: ------------------------------------------------------------ COCHIN EXPORT PROCESSING ZONE KAKKANAD, REP. BY ITS DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER. BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN C.MENON RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS I TO 4 IN THE CRP: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM 2. P.A./KURUVILLA (DIED) S/O. AUGUSTINE CHOOLAKKAL PUTHENVEETTIL, MARKET ROAD,ERNAKULAM. 3. AUGUSTINE KURUVILLA ALIAS RAJAN KURUVILLA S/O. LATE P.A.KURUVILLA CHOOLAKKAL PUTHENVEETTIL, MARKET ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 4. THOMAS KURUVILLA, S/O. LATE P.A.KURUVILLA CHOOLAKKAL PUTHENVEETTIL, MARKET ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 5. SMT.THANKAMMA KURUVILLA, W/O.LATE P.A.KURUVILLA CHOOLAKKAL PUTHENVEETTIL, MARKET ROAD ERNAKULAM. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.T.K.MOHANAN ADV.SRI.V.V.ASOKAN FOR R3 TO R5 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2008, ALONG WITH RP NOS.1141,1142 & 1143 OF 2007 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: dvs M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P. Nos. 1140, 1141, 1142 & 1143 OF 2007 IN C.R.P. NOS.303/04, 1904, 1027 & 1653 OF 2003 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 16th day of July, 2008. O R D E R All these R.Ps. are preferred by the Cochin Export Processing Zone who is the 2nd petitioner in all the CRPs. The review petitioner has filed the CRPs along with the State Government and subsequently in many cases they have got themselves transposed into respondent for the purpose of conducting the case properly which has been allowed in very many cases but unfortunately no such application has been received in this case. All the revision petitions were filed against the orders of the Land Acquisition Court which fixed the amount and ordered attachment without considering the various contentions raised by the parties. When those revision petitions came up for consideration this Court was not aware of the fact that large number of revision petitions were preferred on the same execution proceedings and they had been remanded by different Hon'ble Judges of this Court R.P. Nos. 1140, 1141, 1142 & 1143 OF 2007 IN C.R.P. NOS.303/04, 1904, 1027 & 1653 OF 2003 -:2:- for reconsideration as the order written by the Subordinate Judge does not reflect on the contentions of the parties. In all such matters this Court, for example in CRP Nos. 1892/93, 808/04, 20/05, 339/04, 220/04, 947/06, 154/05, 822/04 etc. had been remanded back to the Land acquisition Court for fresh consideration. Unfortunately, that has not been brought to the notice of this Court and therefore this Court considered the question regarding the awarding of interest on solatium. It is true this Court has considered and passed an order on merit. But the learned counsel for the review petitioner would submit before me that in the light of the various orders passed by the other judges setting aside the orders of the Land Acquisition Court and remanding the matter for fresh consideration if the order of this Court is allowed to stand in these cases it will virtually have an adverse result for them and therefore learned counsel would submit that the said orders may be recalled and directions may be given to the executing Court to consider the orders R.P. Nos. 1140, 1141, 1142 & 1143 OF 2007 IN C.R.P. NOS.303/04, 1904, 1027 & 1653 OF 2003 -:3:- challenged in these CRPs. also afresh. I feel there is considerable force in the said contention. Most probably, if I refuse to recall and review the order the resultant effect will be an adverse impact on the review petitioners and the State Government and the scope of consideration given in the other remand orders will be limited or nullified for the reason the Subordinate Judge may not be able to consider this question afresh, when there is a binding decision on that Court in some other revision petitions. I make it very clear that I am recalling these orders only for the purpose of enabling the Subordinate Judge to consider the batch of cases afresh where almost identical questions are involved. It may not be thought that the order is recalled for any other purpose but for the limited purpose of giving liberty to the Subordinate Judge to consider all the questions that are arising in all the batch of execution petitions. Therefore the judgment passed by me in all those revision petitions are recalled and just like other cases the orders passed by the R.P. Nos. 1140, 1141, 1142 & 1143 OF 2007 IN C.R.P. NOS.303/04, 1904, 1027 & 1653 OF 2003 -:4:- learned Subordinate Judge are set aside and these CRPs. are also remanded back to the same Court for fresh consideration. I make it further clear that all the parties herein are at liberty to advance all the points which they intend to raise and the Subordinate Judge shall deal with it in a considered manner and pass appropriate orders. Therefore, the review petitions are allowed and the CRPs. are disposed of accordingly and the parties are directed to appear before the executing Court on 25.8.08. Being an old matter executing Court is directed to give utmost preference and dispose of these matters at the earliest. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.