IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2009 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1931 RP.No. 329 of 2009(B) ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.8416/2008 Dated 12/03/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/OT A PARTY OF THE WRIT PETITION: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ AREEPARAMBIL LAKSHMI, W/O.C. KARIKKUTTY, AGED 51 YEARS, MATTAKULATHINGAL HOUSE, P.O. MONGAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHIANATHA MENON RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1& 2: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. BABU C.K, S/O. KUTTIYAPPAN, AGED 38 YEARS, AMATTAKULATHINGAL HOUSE, MONGAM, POOKOTTUR VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, ERNAD, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE TALUK SURVEYOU, TALUK OFFICE, ERNAD, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. SMT .M.R. SREELATHA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------- R.P. No.329 of 2009 in W.P.(C) No. 8416 of 2008 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2009 O R D E R W.P(C) No.8416/2008 filed by the first respondent herein was disposed of by judgment dated 12/03/2008 directing that if Exhibit P1 therein has been received and is pending, necessary action shall be taken. 2. Review Petitioner points out that herself and the first respondent, the writ petitioner had purchased two properties and both of them applied for correction in the revenue records, in view of the discrepancy in its measurement. It is stated that while the applications were pending, the first respondent filed the writ petition before this Court and obtained the judgment referred to above. 3. According to the Review Petitioner, in pursuance to the judgment, the authorities processed only his application and if that happens, her claims for correction in the revenue records will be seriously prejudiced. In the circumstances, it is R.P. No.329 /2009 2 prayed that simultaneously the application filed by the petitioner herein also shall be dealt with. 4. I heard the counsel appearing for the first respondent also. 5. As already stated, it is the case of the Review Petitioner that both herself and the first respondent herein purchased different portions of the same property and in respect of both the plots, there is discrepancy in the matter of measurement. While the writ petitioner claims that he filed an application under Section 10 of the Survey and Boundaries Act, Review Petitioner submits that her application was for rectification of the error in the measurement. Although, there is difference in the prayer made, still having regard to the nature of the grievance of both the parties, it is only appropriate that the applications shall be dealt with simultaneously and with notice to both of them. 6. Therefore, direction in the judgment, to take action on Exhibit P1, will stand reviewed and modified and it is directed that the second respondent, Tahsildar shall deal with Exhibit P1 application made by the writ petitioner and R.P. No.329 /2009 3 Annexure E application made by the Review Petitioner. Any action on these applications shall be made with notice to both the parties. 7. It is also clarified that it will be open to the parties to pursue their remedies, if they are aggrieved by the ultimate order that is to be passed. Review petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm