IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2009 / 22ND POUSHA 1930 RP.No. 26 of 2009(E) -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.32802/2008 Dated 19/12/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER:PETITIONER ---------------------- MARK RESEARCH & EDUCATION FOUNDATON, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, LUBINA MANZIL, KOUMUDI NAGAR, PALLITHOTTAM, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM (SR.) SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM SRI.S.M.ALTHAF RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, MUSEUM JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 4. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQSITION NO. 1, KOLLAM. BY ADVOCATE GENERAL SRI.C.P.SUDHAKARA PRASAD THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.NO.26 OF 2009 IN W.P.(c).No. 32802 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of January , 2009 ORDER Heard Sri.Kurian George Kannanthanam, learned senior counsel and Sri.C.P.Sudhakara Prasad, learned Advocate General. Sri.Kannanthanam would submit that this court was not justified in disposing of the writ petition in the manner it has been done i.e. on the reason that the declaration under Section 6 is passed and that the same is not under challenge. The learned senior counsel submitted that, though not specifically, there was prayer in the writ petition seeking quashment of the declaration under Section 6. My attention was drawn to the very first paragraph of the writ petition and also to the prayer portion. 2. Learned Advocate General Sri.C.P.Sudhakara Prasad would draw my attention to the interim order dated 11/11/2008 and would submit that it is apparent from that interim order that this court was given an impression that the declaration under Section 6 was not yet RP.No.26/09 2 passed. I do find merit in the above submission. At the same time, the submission of the learned senior counsel that declaration under Section 6 had also been challenged though not in so many words cannot be said to be without force. 3. The learned Advocate General submits that, at any rate, award has been passed and the proceedings have attained finality. According to him, preponderance of judicial authority is to the effect that once award is passed, there is no scope for invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The submission of the learned Advocate General that the scope of judicial intervention under Article 226 has become very narrow in view of the passage of the award will be considered by the learned Judge who comes to consider this writ petition. But since I find that my judgment has been issued on the wrong premise that there was no challenge at all to declaration under Section 6, I am inclined to recall the judgment. My judgment dated 19/12/2008 will stand recalled. Review petition is allowed without going into the rival contentions. Post the writ petition before the learned Judge who is presently RP.No.26/09 3 dealing with land acquisition matters as per roaster. Sri.Kurian George Kannanthanam asserts that the petitioner has not been dispossessed. If the petitioner has not yet been dispossessed, he will not be dispossessed for a period of three days from today. Issue copy immediately. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. RP.No.26/09 4