IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2009 / 5TH BHADRA 1931 RP.No. 773 of 2009 in LAA.113/05 ------------------------------------ (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN LAA.113/05 DT.18/06/09) REVIEW PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT ----------------------------------------- T.V.LEELAMMA, ELAPPUNKAL, PULLAD, KOIPURAM,. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.KOSHY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. GOVT. PLEADER SMT.LATHA T. THANKAPPAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/08/2009, ALONG WITH L.A.A.113/05, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P. Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ I. A. No.2810 of 2009, R. P. No.773 of 2009 in L. A. A. No.113 of 2005 & L.A.A. No.113/05 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The appellant in L.A.A.113/05 seeks review of our judgment dt.18/06/09 mainly on the basis of Annexure-A1 judgment. According to the appellant, the appellant was not aware of Annexure-A1 judgment under which Ext.A1 relied on by the court below had been interfered with and this Court had re-fixed the market value of the property covered by Annexure-A1 at Rs.3,400/- per cent corresponding to Rs.8,401/- per Are. According to Mr.T.K.Koshy, the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court having taken the view that the judgment in L.A.R. No.17/98 (Ext.A1) is to be R. P. No.773 of 2009 -2- followed in this case, there is every justification for relying on Annexure-A1 which is the final judgment in that very L.A.R case. The learned counsel submitted that on consideration of expediency, in the appeal the claim for market value has been limited to Rs.7175/- per Are. Now that since this Court has under Annexure-A1 judgment re-fixed the land value of the property covered by that judgment at Rs.8,401/- per Are, the appellant should be permitted to amend the memorandum of appeal after allowing the review petition and this Court should allow the appeal to the extent sought for in the application for amendment. 2. The submissions of Mr.Koshy were very forcefully resisted by Smt.Latha T. Thankappan, the learned senior Government Pleader. She drew our attention to Rule 1 of Order 47 CPC and submitted R. P. No.773 of 2009 -3- that there is no warrant for review in this case where this Court has decided on the merits of all the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal and has given reasons for declining to grant anything more than what is granted by the Reference Court under Ext.A1. According to the learned Senior Government Pleader, if the appellant had exercised due diligence, she would have come to know that Annexure-A1 judgment has been delivered by this Court. 3. In reply Mr.Koshy submitted that Order 47 Rule 1 CPC will certainly enable this Court to review its own orders and judgment for other sufficient reasons also. Consideration of justice and the requirement to bring forth a parity between persons who were treated equally by the Land Acquisition Officer can be a good reason for invoking review jurisdiction. R. P. No.773 of 2009 -4- 4. We have considered the rival submissions very anxiously. Though we find merit in the submission of the learned Government Pleader that even if the appellant/review petitioner has a genuine grievance her remedy lies not before this Court in review, but else where, we are of the view that on considerations of justice the application for review can be allowed and the judgment sought to be reviewed can be recalled. 5. At the same time, we do not find any justification for allowing the application for amendment which has been filed only after coming to know about Annexure-A1. If Annexure-A1 is relied on, the appellant will become eligible for higher value than the value claimed by her in the appeal memo. The application for amendment will stand dismissed. We notice Annexure-A1 and allow the appeal in full. Thus, R. P. No.773 of 2009 -5- we re-fix the market value of the lands under acquisition at Rs.7175/- per Are, the rate claimed by the appellant in the memorandum of appeal. It is needless to mention that the appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits on the total enhanced compensation to which she becomes eligible by virtue of re-fixation under this order. 6. R.P and the appeal are allowed, but in the circumstances without any order as to costs. The application for amendment will stand dismissed. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE P. Q. BARKATH ALI JUDGE kns/-