IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2010 / 28TH ASHADHA 1932 RP.No. 233 of 2009(J) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.12700/2007 Dated 16/10/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA 2. THE LAND ACQUSITION OFFICER, SPEICAL THSILDAR, LAND ACQUSITION (G), ALAPPUZHA. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.T.K.MOHANAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. A. SAGARAN, VAKKAYIL KIZHAKKATHIL HOUSE, 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., P.B. NO. 2030, MAVELI BHAVAN, GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI-20. ADV. SRI.LAKSHMI NARAYAN, SC, SUPPLYCO FOR R2 ADV. SRI.K.P.SATHEESAN FOR R1 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ----------------------------------------------- RP. No. 233 of 2009 in WP(C) No. 12700 of 2007 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of July, 2010 O R D E R My judgment dated 16-10-2008 is sought to be reviewed mainly on the reason that even before the above judgment was delivered the enquiry under Section 5A was already completed and the L.A. Officer had prepared his report containing his recommendations on the objections. But it is difficult to uphold the above ground. Exts.P4 and P5 will show that the writ petitioner was invited to participate in the enquiry under Section 5A and I notice that ever since the institution of the writ petition which is also contemporaneous with Exts.P4 and P5 there was stay. I dismiss the RP. I direct the second respondent to hear the petitioner and prepare report incorporating his recommendations regarding the objections and send that report to the competent authority. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) ksv/-