IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2011 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1933 RP.No. 232 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN LAA.843/2006 Dated 28/01/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT ------------------------------- ALICE, W/O.JOY, VATHUPPALLIYA KAYALMUTTUPARAMBIL, PALLIPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOSHI N.THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) INDUSTRIAL GROWTH CENTRE, CHERTHALAI. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.I.D.C., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.V.JAYAPRADEEP, SC, KSIDC FOR R2 BY G.P. SMT.LATHA T.THANKAPPAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.P.No. 232 OF 2011 In L.A.A. No.843 of 2006 ------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of April, 2011 O R D E R Balakrishnan, J. The appellant in L.A.A. No.843/2006 has filed this Review Petition stating that the learned Subordinate Judge has in another case, L.A.R. No.104/2003, granted compensation refixing the land value at Rs.14,586/- per Are. The learned counsel submits that the property covered in that LAR and the property acquired from the appellant in this case are identical and so the claimant in this case is entitled to get the compensation refixed at the rate of Rs.14586/- per Are. and to that extent, the judgment of this court is to be reviewed. 2. It is important to note that the judgment sought to be relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is the judgment passed by the Reference Court in another case. It is not even certain whether that judgment has attained finality. That apart, the subsequent order/judgment rendered by the court in respect of land acquired from another claimant is not a ground to review the judgment in appeal passed by this court. RP.No.232/2011 2 The subsequent decision rendered in another case is not a ground for review. We find this review petition is not maintainable and hence the same is rejected. Refund the full court fee paid on the review petition to the appellant. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk