IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 25TH MAGHA 1929 RP.No. 275 of 1995(K) --------------------- REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO.2: ------------------------------------------------------------- ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WORLD BANK PROJECT SUB-DIVISION, K.S.E. BOARD, BRAHMAPURAM, HEAD QUARTERS, KALOOR, KOCHI - 17. BY ADV. SRI.C.K. KARUNAKARAN (S.C.FOR KSEB) RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/1ST & 3RD RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. V.S. VALLI, W/O. N. RAMASWAMY, AT PRESENT RESIDING AT SREEPURAM, MARKET ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, ELECTRICITY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (L.A.) K.S.E. BOARD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. S.P. CHALY THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P. No.275/1995 in O.P. No.8718/1994 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of February, 2008 ORDER I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Shaji P.Chaly, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent. Review petition is filed seeking to review the judgment in the Original Petition. According to the review petitioner, the first respondent had filed Electricity O.P before the District Court, Ernakulam, which had passed a judgment on 30.9.1994. An amount of Rs.20,860/- came to be awarded towards diminution of land value and this fact came to be suppressed and thereafter the first respondent approached the District Court, Ernakulam and her claims have been considered by the District Court, Ernakulam and it is stated that the first respondent had agitated her claims before this Honourable Court and the District Court, Ernakulam and this could not be brought to the notice of this court. It is stated that the third respondent has fixed the diminution of land value at an exorbitant rate even without referring to the judgment of the District Court, Ernakulam. 2. Learned counsel for the first respondent does not dispute the fact that there was a judgment of the District Court, Ernakulam in Ele.O.P.56/1992 and already the first respondent has received the amount R.P.275/1995. 2 awarded pursuant to the same. In such circumstances, I feel that the review petition is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the review petition is allowed and the Original Petition will stand dismissed. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb R.P.275/1995. 3 K.M. JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------ R.P. 275/95 IN O.P.8718/94. ------------------------------------ ORDER 14.12.2008.