IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2009 / 13TH SRAVANA 1931 CRP.No. 420 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23/05/2009 IN IA 30/09 IN LAR.97/2007 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------------------ MAYAN, S/O. PARANGODAN, LAKSHMI NIVAS, MANOLIPARAMBU, KUNNUMPURAM, EDAPPALLY NORTH P.O. BY ADVS. MR.E.D.GEORGE, MR.P.R.DAMODARAN. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), N.H. NO.1, KAKKANAD. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, N.H. (B) DIVISION, KODUNGALLOORE. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- C.R.P.No.420 of 2009 - E --------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of August, 2009 O R D E R The revision is directed against an order passed by the learned Sub Judge, Ernakulam dismissing a review petition filed by the petitioner to review the judgment passed in L.A.R.No.97 of 2007. The case canvassed by the petitioner for review was that the judgment rendered in a connected L.A.R which had some bearing on the determination of the land value in fixation of enhanced compensation was not taken note of by the court while passing the judgment in L.A.R.No.97 of 2007 in which he was the claimant. Since the judgment of the connected L.A.R., on which the petitioner placed reliance, was rendered only three weeks before the disposal of L.A.R.No.97 of 2007, petitioner could not produce a certified copy of the judgment in L.A.R.No.97 of 2007 was the further case advanced for reviewing the judgment so as to receive the judgment in the connected case and refix the compensation in the land value covered by the acquisition. 2. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. C.R.P.No.420 of 2009 - E 2 3. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented with reference to the order challenged in the revision, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary and it is dispensed with. 4. The ground canvassed by the petitioner for review of the judgment does not come under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. The remedy of the petitioner is to challenge the judgment rendered in L.A.R.No. 97 of 2007, if at all he has any grievance against the decision rendered thereunder, by taking recourse to steps as provided by law. Review cannot be sought for rehearing of the case. The revision petition is devoid of any merit and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-