Vasanthakumari vs District Collector
2021 Latest Caselaw 13371 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
         MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 7TH ASHADHA, 1943
                           RP NO. 508 OF 2019
   AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).35986/2018 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA


REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

           VASANTHAKUMARI, AGED 47 YEARS,
           W/O. AMRITHLAL ROY, SREEKARIYAM P.O.,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

           BY ADVS.SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN & SRI.A.ANOOP



RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

     1     DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
           OFFICE OF THE COLLECTORIATE, II FLOOR, CIVIL STATION ROAD,
           KUDAPPANNUKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 043.

     2     LAND AQUISTION SPECIAL TAHSILDAR
           LAND ACQUISITION OFFICE (GENERAL),
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

           SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, SR.GOVT.PLEADER




     THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.06.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                        ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
      ------------------------------------------------------------------
                           R.P. No. 508 of 2019
           (arising out of the impugned judgment dated 18.12.2018 in
                             WP(C).No.35986 of 2018)
       ----------------------------------------------------------------
                 Dated this the 28th day of June, 2021


                                  ORDER

The above petition has been filed seeking review and

recall of the impugned judgment dated 18.12.2018 rendered in

WP(C).No. 35986/2018.

2. Heard both sides. From the submissions of the counsel

for the review petitioner it appears that the contentions urged are

mainly touching the merits on the manner in which the contentions

of the petitioner have been considered and rejected by this Court.

Despite that, review jurisdiction can be invoked only in rarest of rare

case where the aggrieved party can establish a serious case of error

apparent on the face of the record or a case where despite due

diligence, some cardinal aspects could not be brought to the notice

of this Court. Except on these limited grounds, the plea for review

jurisdiction cannot be entertained by this Court.

3. Where the contention is one impugning the merits in the

manner in which the contentions of the aggrieved party have been

considered and rejected by the Court, then the remedy cannot fall R.P. No. 508 of 2019

..3..

within the limited domain of review and those matters are to be

urged in appellate jurisdiction, subject to the tenability or otherwise

of such plea before the appellate court.

4. Accordingly, this Court is not in a position to accede to

the request of the petitioner as no grounds for review are made out

in this case. The petition fails and hence the plea for review will

stand dismissed.

Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

MMG