IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2010 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1932 RP.No. 668 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN LAA.1343/2005 Dated 10/07/2006 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION, KANNUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT & RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------------------------- KALATHIL PARAMBIL PEETHAMBARAN, S/O. LATE MADHAVAN, MINI NIVAS, P.O.PAYANGADI.R.S. BY ADV. SRI.M.M.SAIDU MUHAMMED THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.668/2010 in LAA.1343/2005 & C.M.Appl.1289/2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 27th day of October, 2010. Order Heard the leaned counsel for parties, including on the merits of the review petition. The plea raised in the review petition is that the ground in the appeal that the standing space of improvements was not taken into consideration for deducting any amount accountable under that head. The total amount granted by way of enhancement of value of improvements is Rs.12340.55. With this, the amount that could have been deducted if at all, was obviously meagre and it does not merit consideration on a review petition filed with an application seeking condonation of delay in 1383 days. There is really no legitimate reason attributed to the delay in filing the review petition. That apart, it is also not the case that such a ground was addressed at the stage of RP668/10 -: 2 :- admission. Under such circumstances, I find that there is no error apparent on the face of the judgment calling for exercise of review, that too, by condoning the enormous delay of 1363 days in filing the review petition. Review petition and the C.M.Application fail and they are accordingly dismissed. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. Sha/3010