IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2010 / 14TH JYAISTHA 1932 RP.No. 369 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CRP.502/2009 Dated 23/12/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/REVISION PETITIONER: ---------------------- P.V.ALAVI,S/O.VEERALI HAJI, POTTAMMAL VAKAYIL,POST PAZHOOR, TIRUR TALUK,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. TALUK LAND BOARD,TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. K.KADIYUMMA,D/O.P.V.VEERALI HAJI, POTTAMMAL VAKAYIL,POST PAZHOOR, TIRUR TALUK,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. VALLIKKADAN RAYIMMU,S/O.KUNHAHAMMED, KLARI,TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. P.V.ENUDEEN,S/O.P.V.VEERALI HAJI, POTTAMMAL VAKAYIL,POST PAZHOOR, TIRUR TALUK,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 6. KALLINGAL PALLIYALLIL PARI, S/O.THAREEKUTTY,NADUVATTOM, TIRUR TALUK,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.M.L.SAJEEV FOR R1 AND R2 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- R.P.NO.369 OF 2010 () IN C.R.P.NO.502 OF 2009 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of June, 2010 O R D E R Review petition is filed by the revision petitioner to review the order dated 23.12.2009 rejecting the revision as time barred on dismissal of the application moved for condoning the delay, a period of 3380 days. The only ground canvassed in the review petition is that in the order passed by this Court holding that the delay is not condonable the cause pleaded by the revision petitioner that no notice from the Taluk Land Board was received has not been specifically examined and a finding thereof has not been entered. The entertaining of a revision is wedged by statutory restriction, and a right of hearing in revision need be extended only if the court finds such an exercise is called for to examine the correctness of the order of the inferior court. No party as of right can contend that a revision as against an order of the inferior court, at his instance, has to be heard and disposed on merits. Leaving that aside, on perusal of the case R.P.369/10 2 records, it is seen, the period of delay sought to be condoned, which, no doubt, was substantial, was considered with reference to the records of the case, after summoning them from the Taluk Land Board. Perusal of the records had disclosed that there was no merit in the challenges imputed belatedly against the order of the Land Tribunal by the revision petitioner. That was also taken into account to dismiss the delay condonation petition, which resulted in the rejection of the revision. I do not find any ground to review that order for the reason adverted in the review petition that no definite finding had been entered into over the issue of notice and its receipt by the Taluk Land Board before passing of the order. From the materials produced in the case, it had also been found that the Taluk land Board had issued notice to the petitioner in the proceedings. There is no merit in the review petition, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp R.P.369/10 3