IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2010 / 12TH MAGHA 1931 RP.No. 87 of 2010 ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRP.NO.2007/2002 DATED 29/09/2009 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/REVISION PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------------------------------- V.RAJAN, S/O.KORAN, KEEZHALLOOR AMSOM DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT GOKUL, MANDAPAM ROAD, CHIRAKKAL P.O., KANNUR. BY ADV. MR.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. CHALATH CHERIYA KADAVAN DEVAKI (DIED). 2. CHALATH CHERIYA KADAVAN ROHINI, D/O.KUNDAN, KEEZHALLOOR AMSOM DESOM, ELAMPARA DESOM, POST EDAYANNUR, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. VARSKKOTH KALLYADAN KANNAN NAMBIAR, (DIED). 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. T.NARAYAN, S/O.DEVAKI, ARMYMAN, KEEZHALLOOR AMSOM KOTHARY DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 6. SATHYAN, S/O.DEVAKI, ARMY MAN, KEEZHALLOOR AMSOM DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. R.P. NO. 87/2010: 7. HARIDASAN, S/O.DEVAKI, KEEZHALLOOR AMSOM, KOTHARI DESOM, THALASSERI TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 8. SARALA, D/O.DEVAKI, ARMY MAN, KEEZHALLOOR AMSOM, KOTHARI DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/02/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ R.P.No.87 of 2010 in C.R.P.No.2007/02 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of February, 2010. O R D E R The review petition is filed against the order dated 29.9.2009 in C.R.P.No.2007/02. The revision petitioner has filed the above review petition. 2. The revision was directed against the judgment of the appellate authority under the Land Reforms Act, Kannur declining the request of the petitioner to condone the delay of 15 years in challenging an order passed by the Land Tribunal in suo motu proceedings issuing a purchase certificate in favour of the predecessor of the respondents. After hearing, the revision was dismissed holding that no interference with the order of the appellate authority was called for. R.P.No.87 of 2010 :: 2 :: 3. The revision petitioner has moved the review petition mainly contending that the appellate authority had erred in holding that there was no sufficient reason to condone the delay and so much so, interference with that order in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this court under Section 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act is called for. Another ground canvassed by the petitioner is that even before the suo motu proceedings commenced, the predecessor of the respondents, in whose favour the purchase certificate was issued had assigned his right over the property in favour of his sons and thereby he had no subsisting rights over the property as on the date when the proceedings commenced before the Land Tribunal. This court had dismissed the revision without R.P.No.87 of 2010 :: 3 :: calling for the records is another cause canvassed for review of the order passed in the revision. 4. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. I do not find any merit in any of the grounds canvassed by the learned counsel as they are totally insufficient to review the previous order/judgment rendered by this court. Review is not a re-hearing of the case. A review is entertainable only on limited grounds where a party who was bound by the previous order is able to satisfy the court that such an order has to be reviewed for the reason of discovery of new and important matter, which was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him, despite due diligence, or there is a mistake or R.P.No.87 of 2010 :: 4 :: error on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason to have a re-hearing of the matter. What the petitioner by filing the review petition seeks is a reconsideration of the revision with reference to the merits of the case. Whatever grounds canvassed by him impeaching the merit of the judgment of the appellate authority had been considered and found to be not sufficient exercise the revisional jurisdiction of this court. Section 103 of the Land Reforms Act makes it abundantly clear that any order passed by the Land Tribunal/Appellate Authority/Taluk Land Board can be interfered only when the authority has either decided erroneously or failed to decide any question of law. Within the narrow scope of Section 103 of the Land Reforms Act, the orders R.P.No.87 of 2010 :: 5 :: of the Authorities under the Land Reforms Act deserve to be scrutinized in considering the entertainability of the challenges against such orders by way of revision. The review petition lacks merit and is dismissed. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE SK/- //true copy// P.S. to Judge.