IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2011 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 RP.No. 800 of 2011 -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN LAA.1779/2007 Dated 29/06/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER: ---------------------- JOSEKUTTY, S/O. VARGHESE, MANACHERIL MANEED, COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.CELINE JOSEPH SRI.GEORGE MATHEWS RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDALR(LA) KOCHI REFINERIS LTD. TRIPUNITHURA. 2. THE DEPUTY G NERAL MANAGER(PROJECTS) KOCHI RFINERIES, LTD. AMBALAMUGHAL. BY GOVT. PELADER SHRI C.R. SHYAM KUMAR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/12/2011, ALONG WITH R.P. NO. 724/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ================================ R.P. NO. 724 OF 2011 IN L.A.A. NO. 359 OF 2008 & R.P. NO. 800 OF 2011 IN L.A.A. NO. 1779 OF 2007 ================================= Dated this the 21st day of December 2011 ORDER Pius C.Kuriakose,J. The appellants/claimants are the review petitioners in both these Review Petitions. They are seeking review of our judgment by which we dismissed the appeals confirming the market value of Rs.42,000/- per Are, which had been fixed by the learned Subordinate Judge. We had noticed in the judgment that the learned Subordinate Judge had to be a considerable extent upheld the claims of the appellants as limited by them in the arguments notes which they had submitted before the Reference Court. We have specifically observed that in the argument notes, the claim had been limited to Rs.46,250/- per Are and hence the claim in the appeal which was for value at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per Are can never be entertained. We made a reappraisal of the evidence on RP NOS. 724 & 800/2011 -2- record before the Reference Court and took the decision to approve the award of the Reference Court on the basis of the impressions gathered by us in such reappraisal. The above judgment of ours is sought to be reviewed mainly on the basis of Annexures 2 and 3 by which the market value of identical property, its claim is refixed by this Court at Rs.50,000/- per Are. It is urged that relying on Annexures 2 and 3, these review petitions be allowed and the market value of the land under acquisition to be refixed at least Rs.50,000/- per Are. Shri C.R. Syam Kumar, Senior Government Pleader, who took notice for the respondents, would oppose all the submissions of Mr.Gracious Kuriakose, learned Senior Counsel for the review petitioner. Mr.Syam Kumar submitted that this court's powers for reviewing its own orders/judgments are well delineated and circumscribed by the contours of Order 47 Rule 1. None of the circumstances envisaged in Order 47 Rule 1 exists in the present case. Hence review will not be justified. Learned Senior Government Pleader RP NOS. 724 & 800/2011 -3- drew our attention to explanation to Order 47 Rule 1. Learned Semior Government Pleader also pointed out that this is a case where a civil appeal was presented to the Supreme Court against the judgment of this Court and the same was not entertained by the Supreme Court which dismissed Special Leave Petition. The judgment of this Court has received the fiat of approval by the Supreme Court. For this reason also, the Review Petitions are not maintainable so submitted by the learned Government Pleader. We have anxiously considered by the submissions addressed at the Bar. We have gone through Annexures 1 to 3 and examined various grounds raised. Annexure-1 is the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition which the review petitioners submitted. It is seen from Annexure-1 that the Supreme Court dismissed the Special leave Petitions and rejected the civil appeals on that reason. Significantly leave of the Supreme Court was not sought for seeking a review of the judgment by this Court. Even though principles of merger may not RP NOS. 724 & 800/2011 -4- strictu sensu apply, there is considerable force in the judgment of the learned Senior Government Pleader that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted approval to the judgment, which is presently sought to be reviewed. The jurisdiction for review is a narrow one and its contours are delineated by Order 47 Rule 1 itself. We are not prepared to entertain these Review Petitions on the basis of subsequent judgments exceeding the permitted jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule-1. We are convinced that no case is made out for invocation of the jurisdiction for Review. The Review petitions will stand dismissed in limine. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE ks. RP NOS. 724 & 800/2011 -5- The arguments were heard by us in the Review Petitions as well as in the delay petitions simultaneously. As there is no merit in the Review Petitions, we feel that there is no prejudice will be caused to the Government by condoning the delay. Hence, the inordinate delay of 759 days in instituting the Review Petition is condoned. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE RP NOS. 724 & 800/2011 -6- K. HARILAL, JUDGE ks.