IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 1195 of 2009()
1. STATE OF KERALA.
... Petitioner
Vs
1. LEELAMMA, W/O.THOMAS,
... Respondent
2. COCHIN EXPORTS PROCESSING ZONE
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :23/07/2010
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
------------------------------------------------
R. P. No.1195 of 2009 in
L. A. A. No.515 of 1994
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2010
ORDER
Pius C. Kuriakose, J
The state in the R.P. seeks review of the
judgment to the extent of correcting the word
“cent” as “Are”. It is urged that under the
judgment this Court reduced the rates awarded by
the Reference Court and re-fixed the value from
Rs.4942/- to Rs.3237/- per Are, but by mistake it
is stated that the re-fixed value is Rs.3237/- per
cent.
2. It is also submitted that the same mistake
occurred in the case of lands included in another
category where the Reference Court has fixed
R. P. No.1195 of 2009
-2-
value at the rate of Rs.9854/- per Are and this
Court actually reduced the value to Rs.4856/- per
Are. But by mistake instead of “Are” the word
“cent” is used.
3. We have considered the submissions of
Smt.Latha T. Thankappan, the learned senior
Government Pleader and Sri.Kuriachan, the
learned counsel for the first respondent.
Smt.Latha argued on the basis of the grounds of
review. Sri.Mohan C. Menon, the learned counsel
for the second respondent would support all the
submissions of Smt.Latha. He drew our attention
to the counter affidavit filed by the second
respondent and submitted that by seeking review
the Government is only seeking correction of
R. P. No.1195 of 2009
-3-
mistake which has crept into the judgment
inadvertently. Sri.K.J.Kuriachan, the learned
counsel for the claimants/respondents drew our
attention to the full text of the impugned
judgment. According to him, on going through the
judgment it will be seen that this Court has
consciously re-fixed the value at Rs.3237/- per
cent itself.
4. Having given our anxious consideration to
the rival submissions and having scanned the
impugned judgment, we are convinced that this
Court has actually interfered with the
enhancement granted by the Reference Court and
reduced the same. In order that the rates granted
are inconformity with the decision actually taken
R. P. No.1195 of 2009
-4-
by this Court, it is necessary that the review is
allowed and the application for correction filed by
the claimants are dismissed. Hence, we allow the
review as prayed for and dismiss the applications
for correction filed by the claimants separately.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
C. K. ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE
kns/-