IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2008 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 R.P.No. 1271 of 2008(Y) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.17633/2007 DATED 14/08/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/ RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION (GENERAL), ALAPPUZHA. 4. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR,SPECIAL TAHSILDAR OFFICE, LAND ACQUISITION (GENERAL), ALAPPUZHA. BY SRI. BASANT BALAJI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER: -------------------------------------- T.G.SUNNY, THONDUPARAMBIL, THAZHAKKARA.P.O, MAVELIKKARA. BY SRI. RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL- R1 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ----------------------------------- R.P. No. 1271 of 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of December, 2008 ORDER Heard Mr. Basant Balaji, learned Government Pleader and Mr. Rinny Stephen, learned counsel for the respondent. Mr. Basant, Government Pleader, submits that pursuant to the judgment sought to be reviewed, fresh notification under Section 4(1) was issued by the L.A officer, since the earlier notification under Section 4(1) had become stale. Pursuant to that notification in deference to the direction of this court an enquiry under Section 5A was conducted. The Government pleader submits that if a declaration under Section 6(1) is to be made on the basis of 5A enquiry now conducted, the said declaration may be beyond the period of limitation, since under the judgment of this court specific liberty has not been given for promulgating fresh notification under Section 4(1). In short, the request of the Government in this review petition is that it be clarified that the Government will be at liberty to issue fresh notification under Section 4(1). 2. Mr. Rinny Stephen opposed the request of the Government. R.P. No. 1271/ 2008 2 According to him, such a clarification issued by this court will affect the petitioner's right to challenge the 4(1) notification as a colourable exercise of power . I cannot agree. The petitioner had no grievance about the judgment of this court dated 14/08/2007. Relief given in that judgment is only to have a 5A enquiry conducted. Since such enquiry is now conducted, this court cannot be a party to the creation of situation of that enquiry becoming infructuous. Accordingly, I dispose of the review petition issuing the following clarifications; 1. The Government is at liberty to issue fresh notification under Section 4(1) pursuant to the judgment of this court dated 14/08/2007. 2. The fresh notification under Section 4(1) already issued, pursuant to the enquiry under Section 5A is conducted, will be treated as regular and in order. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE scm