IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2009 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 RP.No. 782 of 2008(D) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN LAA.338/2002 Dated 29/10/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/CLAIMANT NO.B --------------------------------------------------------------- KURUNGON KUNHIRAMAN, S/O.CHIRI, RAMANTHALI AMSOM, PALAKKODE DESOM. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.KRISHNANKUTTY ACHAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS A, G & D ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. SAIDUMMARAKATH VADAKKEPURAYIL ABDULLA, M.M.HOUSE, NEAR PAZHAYANGADI RAILWAY STATION, PAZHAYANGADI. 2. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA - REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), THALASSERY. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.M.PAREETH FOR R1 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P. NO. 782 OF 2008 in L.A.A.338 OF 2002 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 17th day of December, 2009. J U D G M E N T This Review Petition is filed against the judgment of this Court in LAA 338/02. The said LAA was preferred against the order of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Payyanur in LAR 19/96. the Land Acquisition Court by its judgment held that claimant A is entitled to compensation and not the claimant B. It was aggrieved by that decision the appeal was preferred. This court confirmed the judgment of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. It is to review that judgment B claimant has moved this review petition. 2. Almost the entire judgment is challenged in this review petition stating that it is an error apparent on the face of the record and mistake committed by this court. To understand the facts of the case it has to be stated the acquired property along with other properties belonged to one Yusuf Haji. Yusuf Haji had assigned an extent of 4.16¾ acres R.P. NO. 782 OF 2008 in L.A.A.338 OF 2002 -:2:- which he got under the 1956 deed in favour of the A claimant. Out of the said extent 3.45 acres was transferred by A claimant to B claimant. The property acquired is 0.1388 hectares in R.S.23 of Ramanthali village. Now admittedly at one point of time the property belonged to this Yusuf Haji who in turn has assigned it to A claimant out of which a part of 3.45 acres is assigned to the B claimant. Now the question for consideration is whether the acquired property forms part of the land which is not assigned by A claimant to B claimant or it forms part and parcel of the property assigned to the B claimant. Now in the judgment written by this Court some mistakes have crept in with respect to the tracing of the same, i.e, in paragraph 3 it is stated that Yusuf Haji has sold the property to the B claimant. It is incorrect. It must be as A claimant and A claimant in turn had really sold 3.45 acres to B claimant on the basis of Exts.A4, A5 and A6. But that mistake has not affected the merits of the judgment for the following reasons. R.P. NO. 782 OF 2008 in L.A.A.338 OF 2002 -:3:- 3. The properties obtained by B claimant are under Exts.A4, A5 and A6. The Court below as well as this Court had noted that Exts.A4 and A5 did not cover any property comprised in R.S.24. Ext. A6 is with respect to 90 cents in R.S.23 and 70 cents in R.S.24/1. Now the learned counsel for the review petitioner points out Ext.A5 contains S.N.23. Whatever it may be, it has to be stated unless and until there is evidence to indicate that Exts.A4, A5 and A6 takes in the acquired property the B claimant will not be entitled to any compensation. 4. Unfortunately the B claimant has not established before the trial court which part of R.S.23 is in his possession and which part of the document takes in this property. Since A claimant is the original title holder the question of his possession remaining in the property is established for the reason B claimant cannot have a better title than A claimant for the reason it is from A claimant B claimant had obtained the property. Therefore in the absence of any evidence R.P. NO. 782 OF 2008 in L.A.A.338 OF 2002 -:4:- tendered by B claimant to show that Exts.A4 to A6 takes in part of this property it has to be held that B claimant has not succeeded in proving his right. So, though there is some mistakes here and there, on an overall analysis it can be seen that the finding of this Court with respect to the factum that B claimant had not succeeded in proving that the acquired property forms part and parcel of Exts.A4 to 6 had led to the conclusion that he is not entitled to any compensation from that property. Since A claimant is the original title holder admittedly he is having a better title and therefore I cannot find fault with the reasoning rendered by the trial court in arriving at this decision. Therefore the R.P. lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-