IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2009 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 CRP.No. 1057 of 2005() ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02/07/2005 IN LAR.71,72,73/03 & LAR.70/2003 IN I.A.NO.194/05 of SUB COURT, QUILANDY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/REVIEW PETITIONERS/CLAIMANTS: --------------------- 1. K.M.MARY GEORGE, W/O. GEORGE, AGED 52 YEARS, ERAVICHIRAYIL, PERAMBRA AMSOM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. 2. K.M.SEBASTIAN, S/O.MATHEW, AGED 38 YEARS, KURISSUMMOOTTIL HOUSE, PERAMBRA AMSOM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. 3. K.M.GEORGE, S/O.MATHEW, AGED 55 YEARS, KURISSUMMOOTTIL, PERAMBRA AMSOM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. 4. K.M.JOSE, S/O.MATHEW, AGED 40 YEARS, KURISSUMMOOTTIL HOUSE, PERAMBRA AMSOM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KOZHIKODE 1. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.DEEPA FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.1057 OF 2005 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2009 O R D E R The revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Sub Judge on a petition filed by the petitioners to review the judgment rendered in a bunch of land acquisition references namely L.A.R.Nos.70, 71, 72 and 73 of 2003 on the file of the Sub Court, Koyilandy. Petitioners/claimants in the respective land acquisition references mentioned above after trial and disposal of the references by a common judgment moved an application for reviewing the judgment impeaching the correctness of the quantum of enhanced compensation awarded by the reference court. The learned Sub Judge after examining the merit of the review petition found that no review as canvassed for is permissible as the petitioners by way of review were seeking a reappreciation of the evidence questioning the correctness of the findings entered by the court below in fixing the enhanced compensation under the CRP.1057/05 2 judgment rendered. Forming such a conclusion the learned Sub Judge dismissed the review petition. Propriety and correctness of that order passed by the learned Sub Judge is challenged in the revision 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Perusing the order passed by the learned Sub Judge, I find no impropriety or illegality in the order passed by the learned Sub Judge. If at all, the petitioners were aggrieved by the inadequate enhanced compensation awarded by the reference court, then their remedy was to prefer an appeal challenging the award as provided by law. By way of review, the petitioners wanted to question the correctness of the quantum of enhanced compensation awarded by the reference court. The review petition was rightly and correctly dismissed by the learned Sub Judge holding that a review of the judgment on the grounds canvassed was not entertainable. Revision lacks merit and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp CRP.1057/05 3