IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 13TH MAGHA 1931 RP.No. 404 of 2008 -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN LAA.300/2007 Dated 05/02/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT: ------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) THODUPUZHA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MS.K.MEERA RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT: --------------------------- SUDHA, D/O.GOPALA PILLAI, POOVASSERIL, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV.MR.V.G.ARUN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH (Ag.CJ) & HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ----------------------------------- R.P.No.404 of 2008 in L.A.A.No.300 of 2007 --------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2010 O R D E R Harun-Ul-Rashid, J. Appeal filed as L.A.A.No.300 of 2007 by the Special Tahsildar was dismissed by judgment dated 5.2.2008. The acquired property is classified under Group III B wet land. The reference court fixed the land value relying on the judgment dated 29.7.2005 in L.A.R.No.48 of 2003 and awarded Rs.29,625/- per cent less Rs.1,980/- already awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The reference court held that the land involved in the case is classified as Group III B wet land and held that the classification should have been under Group III A dry land. This Court after considering the rival contentions took the view that the fixation of the land value at Rs.29,625/- per cent is just and reasonable. Therefore the appeal stands dismissed. 2. The appellant review petitioner contended that the acquired land which is a paddy field was converted by the claimant unauthorisedly and therefore the claimant is not R.P.No.404 of 2008 2 entitled to the land value under category Group III A dry land. The sum and substance of the contentions of the learned Government Pleader is that the acquired land is a wet land converted and therefore it should have been categorised under Group III B. In Fact the very same contentions are raised in appeal and this Court examined the legality of the order passed by the reference court. This Court on merits held that the categorisation made by the reference court is correct. The nature of the land at the time of the notification is the relevant factor, in the absence of any collateral proceedings. There are no such proceedings on the alleged conversion. The very same contentions are urged in this review petition. Since the question was decided on merits, the review petitioner is not entitled to request for review on the same ground. This Court held that the claimant is entitled to land value on the basis of the nature and lie of the land under Section 4(1) notification and upheld the value of the land fixed by the R.P.No.404 of 2008 3 reference court at Rs.29,625/-. The contentions raised at the time of final hearing of the appeal are only repeated in this review petition. We find that no grounds are made out to review the judgment. In the result, review petition fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. KURIAN JOSEPH (Acting Chief Justice) HARUN-UL-RASHID, (Judge) bkn/-