IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2010 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 RP.No. 1067 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.29890/2010 Dated 28/10/2010 .................. REVIEW PETITIONER : 2ND RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------------------- THE TECHNOPARK, REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, (C.E.O.), KAZHAKKOOTTAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-69. BY ADVS. SRI.P.AHAMED, SC, TECHNOPARK SRI.THOUFEEK AHAMED RESPONDENTS : PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1, 3 & 4: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SHARLET T.F., PREM VILLA, ATTINKUZHY, KAZHAKKOOTTAM P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695582. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-01. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-05. 4. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION UNIT, (L.R.), KUDAPPANAKKUNNU, CIVIL STATION, TRIVANDRUM-05. R1 BY ADV. SRI. P.K. MANOJ KUMAR R2 TO R4 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- R.P. No. 1067 OF 2010 IN W.P.(C) No. 29890 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of December, 2010 O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides. This is a petition to review the interim order passed by me W.P.(C) No. 29890 of 2010 on 28.10.2010 whereby I declined to vacate the interim order passed by me on 29.9.2010 and made the interim order absolute. The review petitioner contends that on both sides of the 8 metre wide road, which is situated 200 metres to the north of the land belonging to the petitioner, residential buildings are in existence and that if the said road is widened, all the buildings will have to be partly or wholly demolished and that the widening would involve additional expenditure. Reliance is placed on the additional counter affidavit filed by the second respondent dated 10.11.2010 in support of these contentions. The writ petitioner has sworn to a reply affidavit dated 1.12.2010 wherein she has disputed the claim of the second respondent in the counter affidavit that widening of the road on the northern side would involve RP No.1067/2010 2 additional expenditure and demolition of buildings. In such circumstances, as the assertion made in the review petition relying on the additional counter affidavit filed by the second respondent requires to be enquired into in order to verify the correctness of the claim made by both sides, I am of the opinion that the interim order earlier passed by me in W.P.(C) No. 29890 of 2010 on 28.10.2010 cannot be reviewed. The review petition is accordingly dismissed with the observation that it will be open to the review petitioner to raise all the contentions raised in the review petition at the time of final hearing of the writ petition. The Registry is directed to post the writ petition on 3.1.2011 as per roster. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps RP No.1067/2010 3 RP No.1067/2010 4