IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2009 / 16TH ASHADHA 1931 RP.No. 621 of 2009(C) AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.35097/2008 Dated 27/05/2009 REVIEW PETITIONER: PETITIONERS IN W.P.C 1. LIJI, AGED 46 YEARS, W/O. VIJAYAN, VALIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PERUMBADAPPU DESOM, CHENDRAPPINNI, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. 2. ANOOP, S/O. LIJI, VALIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PERUMBADAPPU DESOM CHENDRAPPINNI, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE SRI. A.V.JOJO RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,THRISSUR. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, CHAVAKAD TALUK. 3. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) GENERAL, THRISSUR. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. R. BINDU THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------- R.P.NO.621 OF 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of July, 2009 ORDER Balakrishnan Nair, J. 1. The petitioners have filed this Review Petition raising two grounds. The 1st ground is that, the judgment under review overlooked a decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Krishnan Lal Arneja & others 2004(8)SCC 453 and therefore, the decision is illegal. 2nd ground is that the land sought to be acquired is a paddy field and therefore not suitable for construction of houses for the Tsunami Rehabilitation Programme. 2. We heard, learned counsel Sri. A.X. Varghese on the above two points. we notice that this Review Petition has been filed after changing the counsel who appeared in the Writ Petition. We have already disposed of a batch of cases concerning the acquisition of land for Tsunami Rehabilitation Programme. In some of the cases the above decision was cited and since we felt that on facts, the principles laid down R.P.NO.621 of 2009 2 therein will not apply, we did not follow that decision. Even assuming the decision under review is wrong for not following the principles laid on by the Apex Court, the remedy of the petitioners is to file an appeal against that judgment and not seek review of it. 3. The fact that land sought to be acquired is only a paddy field, is not a ground, which the petitioners could not discover even after due diligence. It was always a paddy field, but that ground is not seen taken in the Writ Petition. Therefore the same cannot be permitted to be urged in the Review Petition. Accordingly, the Review Petition is dismissed. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE spc