IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 25TH BHADRA 1931 R.P.No. 867 of 2007 (K) ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.13130/1996 Dated 06/05/2005 .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/ RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 & 5: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, NEYYATTINKARA. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VIZHINJAM. 4. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS), NEYYATTINKARA V.S. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.RAVINDRA BABU STANDING COUNSEL SRI.C.MOHANAN RESPONDENTS / PETITIONERS: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. V. SHOBHA, VETTUVILA VEEDU, AVADUTHURA DESOM, KOTTUKAL VILLAGE 2. VASAVAKUMAR, THERIVILA VEEDU, PALACHALKONAM, ATHIYOOR DESOM, KOTTUKAL VILLAGE. ADV. SRI.J.HARIKUMAR FOR R2 SRI.HARIKUMAR.S. FOR R2 SRI.R.GOPAN FOR R1 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.No.867 OF 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of September 2009 ORDER Petitioners seek review of the judgment dated May 6, 2005 in O.P.No.13130/96 on the ground that respondent No.1, writ petitioner, is not in possession of the property in question though she is the real owner, and that tax can be accepted from her only after she gets possession of the same. 2. However, it is on record that the writ appeal preferred against the judgment at the instance of respondent No.2 herein (respondent No.4 in the O.P.) was dismissed by the division bench with certain observations. 3. Learned Government Pleader submits that in view of the above judgment in Writ Appeal No.1452/05, the review petition is not pressed. Besides that the review petition has been filed with a delay of 823 days. No proper explanation has been offered for condonation of the delay. Therefore, the delay petition is dismissed. Consequently, the review petition is also dismissed. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) jes