KIZHAKKEKARA THOMAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this proceeding, the question raised for a decision is to the procedure to be followed once the Court grants a review of its judgment / order.

(2.) The land belonging to the petitioner, common in both the cases, was acquired by the respondents and based on determination of compensation for the adjoining lands petitioner made a claim to the District Collector under S.28A of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, 'the Act'). The District Collector made an award with which petitioner was not satisfied and thereon, invoking sub-S.3 of the said provision he requested a reference to the Civil Court for adjudication of his claim. Accordingly, reference was made and learned Sub Judge, Payyannur took the reference on file as LAR Nos. 18 and 19 of 2008 and after hearing parties, passed a common judgment dated September 30, 2009. Petitioner thought that there was error apparent on the face of the record in the common judgment in that certain statutory benefits which he is otherwise entitled to get have not been considered by the learned Sub Judge. Thereon, petitioner filed Exts. P2, applications (in both the cases) for review of the common judgment under R.1 O.47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'the Code'). The Law Officer who appeared for the respondents did not file counter and conceded to the claim of petitioner (in the applications for review). Learned Sub Judge was satisfied of the need for review and accordingly, allowed the applications by separate orders (Exts. P3 in OP (C) No. 2843 of 2011). In OP (C) No. 2852 of 2011, the order is not separately extracted and produced but the order is found on Ext. P2, application which is similar to Ext. P3, order).

(3.) Pursuant to the order granting review, nothing transpired from the learned Sub Judge and it would appear that in the meantime the officer who granted review was transferred. Before the new Sub Judge, petitioner filed applications purporting to be under S.151 and S.152 of the Code. Those applications were dismissed as per order on Ext. P4, applications. The said orders are under challenge in these proceedings.