IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 620 of 2010(N)
1. JOHN JACOB, AGED 45 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
3. THE CHAIRMAN (PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
4. DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE,
5. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF
6. THE SECRETARY, VAZHAPPALLY GRAMA
For Petitioner :SRI.M.V.THAMBAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :12/07/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
R.P.No.620 of 2010
in
W.P.(C.) No.2335 of 2010 (N)
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 12th day of July, 2010
O R D E R
Relying on Annexure A1 agreement allegedly executed by the
petitioner and the owner of land on 31/10/2007, learned counsel
for the petitioner submits that the findings in paragraph 5 of the
judgment that the petitioner has no title or claim over the land
identified by the Panchayat for acquisition is incorrect. On that
ground, learned counsel seeks review of the judgment.
2. The issue raised in the writ petition was that clearance
for setting up an industry was declined on the ground that the water
source identified by the petitioner was one identified by the
Panchayat for acquisition. Therefore, even if there is an agreement,
which is said to be executed between the petitioner and the land
owner, since the land in question is identified for acquisition under
the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, the existence of the
agreement would not have made any impact on the conclusion in
R.P.No.620/2010 in WP(C) No.2335/2010
-2-
the judgment. Even otherwise, the case was decided on the
materials produced, and the arguments advanced and Annexure A1
agreement now relied on were not a part of record in the writ
petition.
Therefore, I am not persuaded to review the judgment. The
review petition is dismissed.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg