Kurian Joseph, J. - (1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) The Appellant is aggrieved by the dismissal of the review application for enhancement of compensation. The Appellant had approached this Court earlier and this Court vide order dated 18 February, 2011 permitted the Appellant to move an application for review which reads as follows: After making some submissions, learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner made a request that his client may be permitted to withdraw the special leave petition with liberty to seek review of the judgment under challenge by pointing out that there is an error apparent in the calculation of the amount with reference to Exhibit C -17. The request of the learned Counsel is accepted and the special leave petition is disposed of with liberty in terms of the prayer made.
(3.) The High Court having found that Exhibit C -17 is a relevant document, for the only reason that Appellant has restricted his claim to Rs. 35/ - per sq. ft. and not as Rs. 46/ - per sq. ft. in terms of Exhibit C -17, declined even to grant the rate of Rs. 35/ - per sq. ft. Even according to the High Court it was a case for enhancement of compensation. In our view it is not a relevant reasoning to deny the enhancement based on the said document to the extent of at least Rs. 35/ - per sq. ft.;