IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN TUESDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1943 RP NO. 231 OF 2022 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPC 1395/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA OPC 1395/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA OP(C) 1395/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA REVIEW PETITIONER/S:

STATE OF KERALA, REPRSENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), RAILWAYS, KAYAMKULAM, PIN -

690106 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER VENUGOPAL V.

RESPONDENT/S:

1 K.M. SAROJINI, 78 YEARS, W/O.K.K.VIJAYARAJAN, SAROJINI MANGALAM, KARUMADI P.O AMBALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688561

2 SOUTHERN RAILWAYS, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682016 OTHER PRESENT:

SC FOR RAILWAYS A.DINESH RAO THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

08.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

V.G.ARUN, J.

-----------------------------------------------

R.P.No. 231 of 2022 in O.P(C).No. 1395 of 2021 -----------------------------------------------

Dated this the 8^th day of March, 2022

O R D E R

This review petition is filed pointing out that, subsequent to the judgment of this Court, the Government has preferred Land Acquisition Appeals challenging the awards which are sought to be executed by the original petitioner. It is submitted that in connected appeals, this court has stayed the execution, subject to deposit of 50% of the compensation amount with proportionate interest and cost before the Authority within 60 days. The claimant has also been given liberty to move the Authority for withdrawal of the deposited amount in accordance with law.

2.Learned Government Pleader points out that since this court has stipulated a time limit for disposal of the execution petition, appeal in this case has not been brought up for consideration. It is submitted that it would be beneficial for the claimant also if an order, as in the other appeals, is passed in his case.

3. I find substantial merit in the submission. The State having preferred appeals against the awards, for the execution of which time limit is stipulated in these original petitions, I deem it appropriate to review the judgment, particularly in view of the fact that, while admitting the appeals and granting stay, this court is directing payment of 50% of the compensation amount.

In that view of the matter, the review petition is allowed and the judgment is recalled.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN, JUDGE vgs