High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
SOBHANA v. M.V. THANKAPPAN - RP No. 757 of 2006(W)  RD-KL 621 (29 August 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMRP No. 757 of 2006(W)
1. SOBHANA, W/O. LATE SUNDARESAN,
2. RISHIMON, S/O. LATE SUNDARESAN,
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
3. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE,
4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.G.BHAGAVAT SINGH
For Respondent :SRI.C.RAJENDRAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
O R D E RS. SIRI JAGAN R.P. NO. 757 OF 2006 IN W.P.(C) NO. 13850/2006 W
Dated this the 29th day of August, 2006
O R D E RThe petitioners in this review petition are respondents 4 & 5 in W.P.(C) No. 13850/06, which I had disposed of by my judgment dated 29/05/2006, directing the District Collector, Kollam to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2 representation filed by the 1st respondent herein. The judgment was passed without issuing notice to the petitioners in the review petition, since only a direction to dispose of the 1st respondent's representation was made in the judgment. Now the petitioners in the review petition states that this question was earlier concluded by a decision of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 12761/93 which resulted in the resurvey authorities taking proceedings culminating in Annexure-I field map. This fact was intimated to the predecessor in interest of the petitioners, Shri. R Sunderesan, as per Annexure III. The petitioners in the review petition therefore submit that the representation filed by the 1st R.P. NO. 757 OF 2006 IN W.P.(C) NO. 13850/2006 W (2) respondent before the District Collector was not maintainable, since the matter was finally decided pursuant to the judgment of this court in O.P. No. 12761/93. The petitioners in the review petition submit that they did not have an opportunity to present all these facts before the court while passing the impugned judgment since notices were not issued to them.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the 1st respondent as also the learned Government Pleader.
3. It is true that the judgment was rendered by me without issuing notice to the petitioners in the review petition. However, I do not think that it is necessary to review my judgment because of that, in view of the orders I propose to pass in this review petition. It was admitted before me by both sides that the District Collector has not passed any orders pursuant to my directions in the impugned judgment. I also find that the District Collector has filed I.A. No. R.P. NO. 757 OF 2006 IN W.P.(C) NO. 13850/2006 W (3) 10210/06 for extension of time to comply with the directions in the judgment. Of course even the period requested for by the District Collector is also over. Whatever that be, I direct that before passing final orders on Ext.P2 pursuant to my directions in the impugned judgment, the District Collector, Kollam shall hear the petitioners in the review petition, who are respondents 4 & 5 in the writ petition, also. The petitioners in the review petition would be entitled to raise all their contentions including the maintainability of Ext.P2 representation which is based on the judgment of this Court in O.P. No. 12761/93 and the binding nature of the proceedings initiated pursuant thereto. The District Collector shall pass final orders within one month from the date of receipt of this Order after hearing both sides. If in the meantime, the Collector posts the matter for hearing, the 1st respondent in this review petition shall inform the Collector about the orders passed in the review petition, if the petitioners in the review petition are unable to place a certified copy of this Order before the District Collector prior to such posting. With the above clarification, the review petition is disposed of. R.P. NO. 757 OF 2006 IN W.P.(C) NO. 13850/2006 W (4)
(S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE)jg
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.