IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RP.No. 1271 of 2008(Y) 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE ... Petitioner 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, 3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION 4. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR,SPECIAL TAHSILDAR Vs 1. T.G.SUNNY, THONDUPARAMBIL, ... Respondent For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE Dated :04/12/2008 O R D E R PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ----------------------------------- R.P. No. 1271 of 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of December, 2008 ORDER
Heard Mr. Basant Balaji, learned Government Pleader and Mr.
Rinny Stephen, learned counsel for the respondent. Mr. Basant,
Government Pleader, submits that pursuant to the judgment sought to
be reviewed, fresh notification under Section 4(1) was issued by the
L.A officer, since the earlier notification under Section 4(1) had
become stale. Pursuant to that notification in deference to the direction
of this court an enquiry under Section 5A was conducted. The
Government pleader submits that if a declaration under Section 6(1) is
to be made on the basis of 5A enquiry now conducted, the said
declaration may be beyond the period of limitation, since under the
judgment of this court specific liberty has not been given for
promulgating fresh notification under Section 4(1). In short, the request
of the Government in this review petition is that it be clarified that the
Government will be at liberty to issue fresh notification under Section
2. Mr. Rinny Stephen opposed the request of the Government.
R.P. No. 1271/ 2008
According to him, such a clarification issued by this court will affect
the petitioner’s right to challenge the 4(1) notification as a colourable
exercise of power . I cannot agree. The petitioner had no grievance
about the judgment of this court dated 14/08/2007. Relief given in that
judgment is only to have a 5A enquiry conducted. Since such enquiry
is now conducted, this court cannot be a party to the creation of
situation of that enquiry becoming infructuous.
Accordingly, I dispose of the review petition issuing the
1. The Government is at liberty to issue fresh
notification under Section 4(1) pursuant to the
judgment of this court dated 14/08/2007.
2. The fresh notification under Section 4(1) already
issued, pursuant to the enquiry under Section 5A is
conducted, will be treated as regular and in order.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE