IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1932 RP.No. 1018 of 2010(Q) ---------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.24242/2010 Dated 16/08/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): IST RESPONDENT IN WPC. ------------------------------------------------------------- KOCHUKRISHNAN,S/O.MADHAVIKUTTY, PUTHENVEETTIL HOUSE,ERUMATHALA,ASHOKAPURAM P.O., ALUVA. BY ADVS. SRI.S.EASWARAN SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN (IRIMPANAM) SRI.M.A.AUGUSTINE RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5 IN WPC. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. BABU.C.S,CHIRACKAL VEETTIL SREEDHARAN, CHIRACKAL VEETTIL HOUSE, ERUMATHALA, PO ASHOKAPURAM , ALUVA. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, ALUVA,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. THE TALUK TAHASILDAR,ALUVA TALUK. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT COCHIN,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN 682 001. 5. CHOORNIKKARA PANCHAYAT,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,CHOORNIKKAR,ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ V. RAMKUMAR, J. .................................. Review Petition No. 1018 of 2010 ..................................................... Dated: 11th day of November, 2010 ORDER 1st respondent in W.P(C)No.24242/2010 seeks a review of the judgment dated 16.8.2010 passed by this Court at the stage of admission directing the 4th respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Cochin to pass final orders on Ext.P4 petition filed by the 1st respondent herein (writ petitioner) under Section 133 Cr.P.C claiming rights in respect of a pathway alleged to be a public path way. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the writ petitioner. 3. The grievance of the review petitioner is that the writ petition was disposed of without hearing him and that when there are sufficient materials to dissuade the R.D.O. from proceeding further, in view of the concurrent decrees passed by the Civil Court inter parties in the suit filed by the writ petitioner as O.S.No.72/1999 before the Munsiff's Court, Aluva as confirmed by the Sub Court, North Paravur in the judgment and decree dated 17.2.2009 in A.S.No.101/2004, the R.D.O. may proceed further Review Petition No. 1018 of 2010 2 and pass final orders adverse to the interest of the review petitioner by relying on irrelevant materials. 4. All that, this court said in the judgment dated 16.8.2010 is as follows:- “2. If the 4th respondent is prima facie convinced that Ext.P4 application is to be proceeded with further and that the pathway in question is a public pathway, he shall pass a conditional order under Section 133(1) Cr.P.C calling upon the opposite party to enter appearance and show-cause why the conditional order should not be made absolute. The matter cannot be kept pending endlessly without passing any orders on the petition. This writ petition is disposed of directing the 4th respondent to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law on Ext.P4 petition.” 5. The review petitioner herein will have an opportunity to show-cause before the R.D.O. as to why the conditional order should not be made absolute and why the proceedings should be terminated. It is also open to him to bring to the notice of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the impact of the concurrent decrees Review Petition No. 1018 of 2010 3 passed by the Civil Court. In that event, I am sure that the Revenue Divisional Officer will advert to those materials as well before proceeding further. Clarifying this, this review petition is disposed of. V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) dmb