IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2008 / 3RD MAGHA 1929 RP.No. 81 of 2008 IN R.F.A.No.356 of 2004 ----------------------------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RFA.356/2004 Dated 16/11/2007 OS.121/1981 of SUB COURT,THODUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER/APPELANT: ---------------------------------- M.L.GEORGE, RESIDING AT MALIAKAS HOUSE, MATHALAKODAM KARA, THODUPUZHA VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERLA, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, KUMELY RANGE, KUMALY. 4. M.K.CHANDRA SEKHARA IYER, D.F.O.KALLAR VALLY TEAK PLANTATION DIVISION, ACAHANCEIL, CHEMKETTAH, QUILON DISTRICT, KERALA. 5. M.S.JOY, SILVI CULTURAL RESEARCH OFFICER THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.R.LAKSHMINARAYANAN. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. ----------------------------------- R.P.No.81 of 2008 in R.F.A.No.356 of 2004 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2008. O R D E R P.R.Raman, J. The appellant is the review petitioner. Both the petitioner herein as well as the State have filed appeals against the judgment and decree passed by the court below. Both the appeals were heard together and disposed of by a common judgment rendered on 16th November, 2007. The contention of the petitioner herein is that, in para 4 at page 8 of the judgment we have directed that the difference in value between the letter price and the statement price shall be given by way of additional compensation payable to the appellant. The statement referred is the statement filed by the State. It is the contention of the petitioner that the statement filed by the State will not cover all types of goods. If there is no price fixed in the statement in respect of any particular goods, necessary orders are required to be passed as to how damages has to be assessed. It is true that, the statement price does not cover all types of goods. Accordingly, we clarify that, if the price of any of the goods is not in the statement price, it will be open to assess additional compensation R.P.No.81/2008 -2- based on the price to be fixed after considering the materials on record. (2). It is then contended by the learned counsel for the review petitioner that, we have observed that the damages has to be assessed not based on the quantity but based on its value. We do not find any error apparent on the face of the record. We have only followed the earlier judgment of this Court which is binding on the parties. Hence there is no ground to review this aspect of the matter. The Review Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. MS