IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2008 / 16TH SRAVANA 1930 RP.No. 869 of 2008(F) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.11295/2008 Dated 09/04/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/NOT A PARTY IN THE WRIT PETITION ----------------- TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS ------------- 1. ANNAMMA GEORGE, THURUTHIYIL PUTHEN VEEDU VADAKKE MURI. 2. PURUSHAN PILLAI, JALAJA BHAVANAM, NADUVILE MURI. 3. BADARUDEEN, APPAZHANJIYIL, PALLIMURI, PORUVAZHY. 4. AZEES, ASANTAYYATH, PANAPPETTY, SASTHAMCOTTA. 5. NARAYANA PILLAI, SYAMALA VILASOM, NADUVILEMURI, CHAKKUVALLY. 6. SIVASANKARA PILLAI, PADINJATTA VEETTIL, EHAVARAM NADUVILE MURI, PORUVAZHY. 7. THANKAPPA KURUP, KAILER KANDATHIL, ERAVICHIRA, SOORANAD SOUTH. 8. SAJI LUKOSE, JIJI BHAVANAM, VADAKKE MURI, SOORANAD NORTH. 9. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHOOR, SASTHAMCOTTA. RP.No. 869 of 2008(F) -2- 10. THE TAHSILDAR, OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHOOR, SASTHAMCOTTA. 11. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- R.P. 869 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: AUGUST 7, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is seeking review of the judgment in WP(C).No.11295/2008. According to the petitioner, the proceedings impugned in the writ petition were initiated following Annexure-III order of the Division Bench in WP(C) No.34537/2007. It is also contended that the land belongs to Devaswom and that the title has been settled in its favour by various judgments rendered by the competent civil courts. 2. A reading of the judgment, the review of which is sought for by the petitioner, shows that this court was only concerned with the denial of an opportunity to the petitioners in the writ petition and it is on that short ground, the impugned order has been interfered with and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration. Therefore, by the judgment in the writ petition, none of the right of the R.P. 869 of 2008 2 review petitioner is affected. 3. Since the review petitioner now asserts its claim of title over the property in question, it is necessary that their views also are heard by the competent authority, in pursuance to the directions contained in the judgment. It is also necessary that the dispute should be given a finality on an expeditious basis. 4. Accordingly, the review petition is disposed of directing that the first respondent in the writ petition shall finalise the proceedings as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the order. It is also directed that before orders are passed, along with the petitioners in the writ petition notice shall also be issued to the review petitioner and they should also be heard. Review petitioner shall produce a copy of this order before the first respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE mt/- R.P. 869 of 2008 3