Kerala High Court
Vikraman Nair vs State Of Kerala on 8 July, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:50889
1
RP No.546 of 2025 in LAA No.663/2007 & CMA No.1 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1947
RP NO. 546 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.12.2009 IN LA.App.
NO.663 OF 2007 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT:
VIKRAMAN NAIR, AGED 68 YEARS
S/O. CHELLAPPAN NAIR, TC 31/1780, VAYALIL
PUTHENVEEDU, VAYYAMOOLA, PETTAH,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695024
BY ADV SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA)
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED
BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
2 THE AIRPORT DIRECTOR
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA, INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695008
SR GP TK SHAJAHAN
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 08.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:50889
2
RP No.546 of 2025 in LAA No.663/2007 & CMA No.1 of 2025
ORDER
Dr.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
This review petition has come up before us together with a
petition seeking condonation of delay of 5541 days in filing the review
petition.
2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the review
petition are as follows:
The petitioner in RP No.546 of 2025 had approached this
Court through Land Acquisition Appeal in the year 2007, challenging
the award of the 1st Additional Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in LAR
No.663 of 2007 preferred at the instance of the petitioner. It is
discernible from the review petition that the reference court had
enhanced the land value of the lands acquired from the petitioner to
Rs.75,000/- per Are from the value of Rs.62,929/- per Are, that was
fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. In the appeal preferred before
this Court, this Court allowed the appeal and refixed the land value at
Rs.1,00,000/- per Are.
3. While the petitioner in the review petition herein
was satisfied with the judgment of this Court in the Land Acquisition
Appeal, certain other claimants, whose lands were acquired under the
same notification, approached the Supreme Court through SLPs
2025:KER:50889
RP No.546 of 2025 in LAA No.663/2007 & CMA No.1 of 2025
preferred by them. The said SLPs were later numbered as Civil
Appeals in 2023 and finally allowed by refixing the land value in
respect of the lands acquired from them at Rs.15,00,000/- per Are with
consequential financial benefits thereon.
4. The review petition has been preferred by the
petitioner, with a view to obtaining the same benefits as the claimants
in the Civil Appeals referred above, on the specious contention that
inasmuch as the lands acquired from the petitioner, and the claimants
before the Supreme Court, were covered by the same notification, and
were of similar nature, the petitioner too must get the benefit of the
enhanced value granted to the claimants who had approached the
Supreme Court.
5. We have heard Sri.Shabu Sreedharan, the learned
counsel appearing for the review petitioner and Sri.T.K.Shajahan, the
learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents.
6. On a consideration of the rival submissions, we
find ourselves unable to accept the submissions of the learned counsel
for the review petitioner. The grounds for maintaining a review
petition against a judgment of this Court in a Land Acquisition Appeal
are fairly well settled and they certainly cannot take into account the
facts that were subsequently discovered by the parties to the lis. That
2025:KER:50889
RP No.546 of 2025 in LAA No.663/2007 & CMA No.1 of 2025
apart, we also find that the petitioner was similarly situated as the
claimants before the Supreme Court, when it came to approaching the
Supreme Court for a further enhancement of the market value of the
lands acquired from him. For reasons best known to him, the
petitioner chose to accord a finality to the judgment of this Court in
the Land Acquisition Appeal preferred by him, and did not choose to
pursue the matter further before the Supreme Court. The settled
principle in law that, it is in the interests of the Republic to put an end
to litigation, must apply equally even in respect of Land Acquisition
matters, especially where, as in the present case, the petitioner choose
to remain silent without taking any further proceedings for a period of
more than 15 years since the judgment of this Court in his Land
Acquisition Appeal.
7. Under the said circumstances, although the
Supreme Court has, in the case of other claimants similarly situated as
the petitioner herein, enhanced the market value of the lands acquired
from them, we do not think that the petitioner herein is entitled to a
similar enhancement of the value of the lands acquired from him, since
he did not chose to pursue the matter further, notwithstanding that
there was no impediment to do so. We do not see the delay in
approaching this court through the review petition above as
satisfactorily explained.
2025:KER:50889
RP No.546 of 2025 in LAA No.663/2007 & CMA No.1 of 2025
Accordingly, the application for condonation of the delay is
dismissed. Consequently, the review petition is also dismissed.
sd/-
Dr.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
sd/-
P.M. MANOJ
JUDGE
das
2025:KER:50889
RP No.546 of 2025 in LAA No.663/2007 & CMA No.1 of 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure-1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF 2ND
ADDL. SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
IN LAR NO. 60/2006 DATED 24.2.2024
Annexure-2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE
SUPREME COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.
3547/2013 AND 13 CONNECTED CASES
ALONG WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9816/2011
DATED 9.5.2023
Annexure-3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN LA
APP NO. 740/2014 DATED 23.10.2024
