IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 25TH JULY 2011 / 3RD SRAVANA 1933 RP.No. 438 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN LAA.299/2002 Dated 10/01/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/ APPELLANT/CLAIMANT ---------------------------------------- K.VENUGOPALAN, S/O.GIRIJA VALLABHA MENON, KALAMASSERI (MANKKAPRAMBIL) IRUMPANAM, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.JAYACHANDRAN SRI.RAJU V.MATHEW RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. COCHIN REFINERIES LTD., REGISTERED OFFICE AT AMBALAMUKAL, REPRESENTED BY THE COMPANY SECRETARY. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK ADV.SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. _______________________________________ R.P.No.438 OF 2011 in L.A.A.No.299 OF 2002 _____________________________________ Dated this the 25th day of July, 2011 ORDER Ramkumar, J. The appellant in L.A.A.No.299/2002, which was disposed of by this court on 10/01/2011, is the review petitioner. The above appeal pertains to the compulsory acquisition of land for providing safety zone for the Cochin Refineries Ltd. The land involved in this case belongs to Category VI for which the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.1,480/- per Are. The Reference Court enhanced the same to Rs.1,760/- per Are. It was aggrieved by the rate fixed by the Reference Court that the petitioner filed the above appeal. 2. When this appeal came up for hearing before this court along with three other connected appeals, this court disposed of the appeals holding inter alia that the lands involved in those appeals fall under Category VI and covered by the judgment in L.A.A.No.846/2000 which was already disposed of by the Division Bench on 18/06/2009. R.P.No.438/2011 2 Accordingly, the appeals were closed on that premise. 3. The grievance of the review petitioner is that virtually no enhancement has been granted to the petitioner and this court should have disposed of the appeals in the light of the judgment in L.A.A.No.1516/2002 arising out of L.A.R.No.39/1995, which also involved lands of the same category acquired under the same notification. 4. We heard both sides. 5. There cannot be any error apparent on the face of the record for not disposing of the appeal in the light of the judgment in L.A.A.No.1516/2002 for the simple reason that L.A.A.No.1516/2002 was disposed of on 18/01/2011 which is after the disposal of the present appeal. But we notice that L.A.A.No.846/2000 arose out of L.A.R.No.60/1995 wherein the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded land value at the rate of Rs.1480/- per Are which was enhanced to Rs.4,000/- per Are by the Reference Court which works out to an enhancement of Rs.2,520/- per Are. If so, the petitioner who was the appellant in the above appeal would also be entitled to the same rate of R.P.No.438/2011 3 enhancement as was given in L.A.A.No.846/2000 since the present appeal was also disposed of following the judgment in L.A.A.No.846/2000. We need only clarify that the petitioner will be entitled to enhancement at the rate of Rs.2,520/- per Are over and above the sum of Rs.1,480/- per Are granted by the Land Acquisition Officer. The decree shall be drawn up accordingly. The Review Petition is disposed of accordingly. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE. sv R.P.No.438/2011 4