Judgment :- "In this Original Petition, petitioner challenges Ext. P9 issued by the Assistant Collector, directing the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.35, 575/-, the balance of compensation amount payable for acquisition of 10 cents to shift the kudikidappu of the petitioner. 2. Petitioner is the owner of 17 cents of land in Sy. No. 423 of Arattupuha village, Karthikappally Taluk, where one Hassan kunju is a kudikidappukaran. According to the petitioner, she holds only less than one acre of land and she is-entitled to get the kudikidappu, shifted to another place to be acquired under the provisions of"K.L.R. Act. Sheffield an application before the Government for shifting under S.75(3) of the Act. The application was forwarded by the Government to the Deputy Collector, Alappuzha for enquiry an i report. Ext.P1 is the communication sent by the Special Secretary to Government in this regard. The Assistant Collector issued Ext. P2 certificate stating that petitioner's application had been admitted for acquisition of alternate site. Ext. P4 is the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer stating that the application of petitioner is bonafide. Thereafter, by Ext. P5 communication, petitioner was informed that her application has been allowed. Petitioner was directed to deposit Rs. 4,2251-towards871/2% of the approximate value of the properly. Accordingly, she deposited the amount and Ext. P6 is the acknowledgement for receipt of the money. Government issued Ext. P7 order stating that in view of the ruling of this court in George v. State of Kerala & Ors (1981 KLT 224 (F.B.) the R.D.O. could not pursue the matter further and therefore the Government considered the case and found that the claim made by the petitioner for shifting is bonafide. The application was accordingly allowed and the R.D.O. was directed to take necessary steps to acquire land for shifting the kudikidappu. It is pursuant to this, the Sub Collector issued Ext. P8. Thereafter, Ext. P9 order was issued, directing her to deposit Rs.35, 575/-within 15 days. 3. In this Original Petition, learned counsel for petitioner contended that initially she was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.4, 225/- for acquisition of 10 cents for shifting kudikidappu allowing application filed by her under S.75(3) and that merely because, later this court held that Asst. P9 order was issued, directing her to deposit Rs.35, 575/-within 15 days. 3. In this Original Petition, learned counsel for petitioner contended that initially she was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.4, 225/- for acquisition of 10 cents for shifting kudikidappu allowing application filed by her under S.75(3) and that merely because, later this court held that Asst. Collector has no jurisdiction to determine the question and the Government alone is empowered to dispose of the matter cannot affect the order already passed by the R.D.O. Learned counsel also submitted that kudikidappukaran has not challenged the order passed by the Assistant Collector and in the circumstances, it became final. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner invited my attention to a Division Bench ruling of this court m Board of Revenue & anr. v. P.K. Syed Akbar Sahib (1973 KLT 497) and submitted that a subsequent binding decision would not constitute either a discovery of "a new and important matter" or a "mistake" or an error apparent in the face of the record the circumstances. Learned counsel argued that the Government was wrong in reopening the ma tier. It was held by a Full Bench of this Court in George v. State of Kerala & Ors. (1981 KLT 224) that the Government alone is the competent authority to decide the application under S.75(3) of K.L.R Act. Therefore the order originally passed by the R.D.O. was without jurisdiction and it is for this reason that the Government passed fresh order Ext. P7 after hearing the parties. Petitioner has not challenged Ext. P7 order in this O.P. Further, by Ext. P7, Government held that the application filed by petitioner is genuine and in that view, Government allowed the application. So, petitioner cannot have a grievance against Ext. P7 order. 5. Sub-section 3A of S.75 of the Act lays down that in an application under sub-sec. 3, the applicant shall offer to deposit, whenever called for, eighty seven and a half per cent of the amount of compensation payable for acquisition of land equal to the extent of the existing kudikidappu subject to a minimum of three cents if within the limits of a city or major municipality or ten cents If in any panchayat area or township. Initially, the petitioner was called upon to deposit only Rs. Initially, the petitioner was called upon to deposit only Rs. 4,225/- under the impression that it would form approximately 871/2% of the value of the land to be acquired. It was found later that a larger amount is payable by way of compensation for 10 cents of land to be acquired. It may perhaps be due to delay in acquiring the land, it became necessary to pay higher compensation. The delay also may be due to the decision of the Full Bench holding that Government alone is competent to dispose of applications under S.75(3) and consequential procedural delay in passing final order by the Government. However that will not change the liability or petitioner to deposit the balance amount required to form 871/2% of the total compensation payable. Petitioner has executed a bond undertaking to remit the balance amount, if any, as and when directed by the respondents and he is bound to pay the balance amount required to make up shortage. Learned counsel for petitioner heavily relied on the doctrine of promissory estoppel, but I am unable to find any ground to apply that principle to the facts of this case. There is no merit in the Original Petition and it is accordingly dismissed.