SMT.JULIET vs STATE OF KERALA

The review petition is of the year 2006 and hence, when the matter came up last time we adjourned it, since the Counsel for the petitioner had

not appeared. Even today there is no appearance for the review petitioner. We have gone through the judgment under review. We see that the

review petitioner along with three others filed the writ petition for police protection, alleging that the party respondents in the writ petition were

attempting to widen the road by trespassing into the properties of the petitioners and causing loss and damage to the buildings situated therein.

It was alleged that despite making complaints before the jurisdictional police officers nothing was done by them and a frenzied mob under the

leadership of the party respondents trespassed into the properties of the petitioners and demolished the boundary wall and gate. Again on

23.9.1993 yet another mob under the direction and leadership of the party respondents trespassed into the property and demolished the shop

rooms belonging to the petitioners 1 to 3 and 75% of the residential house of the 4th petitioner. This was despite the undertaking by the police

before this Court that the petitioners would be granted adequate protection. The learned Single Judge who was considering the writ petition

appointed a Commissioner who found that there was no loss caused to the petitioners 1 to 3 but the 4th petitioner has suffered a loss of Rs.4.65

lakhs. The learned Single Judge allowed the claim for police protection and additionally awarded an amount of Rs.4.65 lakhs to be paid to the 4th

petitioner who is the review petitioner herein.

The judgment of the learned Single Judge in O.P.No.13403 of 1993 was dated 18.2.1997. The State filed an appeal as W.A.No.904 of 1997

which was rejected by the judgment which is sought to be reviewed on 23.12.2005. There is no appeal filed by the review petitioner against the

judgment of the learned Single Judge.

The Division Bench considering the appeal, found that there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment in the writ petition and rejected the

same. It was specifically found that the State did not have any objection with respect to the police protection granted and the appeal was confined

to the compensation awarded. The Division Bench after quoting various decisions on the public law remedy rejected the appeal, directing the State

to compensate the 4th petitioner as ordered by the learned Single Judge. An SLP was filed therefrom by the State which also stood rejected on

5.10.2012 in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)No.7048 of 2006.

The present Review Petition was filed in the year 2006. As we noticed, the appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge was filed by

the State alone. If at all the review petitioner had a claim that more compensation would be due to her, she ought to have filed an objection to the

Commission Report and filed an appeal from the judgment of the learned Single Judge. At the risk of repetition, the judgment of the learned Single

Judge was on 18.2.1997. An appeal was filed by the State and rejected in the year 2005. The petitioner has filed the above Review Petition in the

year 2006. We could do little by reviewing the order in a writ appeal filed by the State since the adequacy of the compensation was not an issue

which was urged by the State nor was it taken up by the review petitioner in a properly instituted appeal. We find that there is no cause to review

the judgment. We reject the review petition.