IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2010 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1931 RP.No. 250 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.36235/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS 5 TO 8 IN THE WRIT PETITION ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ANNIE, W/O.ANTONY, PULLENTHARA HOUSE, PANANGAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. VINU, S/O.ANTONY, PULLENTHARA HOUSE, PANANGAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. SINU, S/O.ANTONY, PULLENTHARA HOUSE, PANANGAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. LINU, S/O.ANTONY, PULLENTHARA HOUSE, PANANGAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJU JOSEPH SRI.S.SUDHISH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 IN THE WP. ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. N.S.MAKKAR, KATTATHARA VEEDU, KUMBALAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. 2. PONNAN @ JOSEPH, CHIRAKKAL, PANANGAD. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 5. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORTKOCHI. 6. KUMBALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, KUMBALAM. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.T.T.MAHAMOOD ADV.BLAZE K.JOSE ADV.T.M.CHANDRAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== R.P.No. 250/2010 in W.P.(C).No. 36235/07 ================== Dated this the 9th day of March, 2010 O R D E R Respondents 5 to 8 in W.P.(C). No.36235/2007 have filed this review petition seeking review of my judgment dated 3.6.2009 in that writ petition. The ground mentioned in the review petition seeking review of the judgment is that certain facts were omitted to be brought to the notice of this Court at the time of arguments. I note that against that judgment, the petitioners in the review petition had filed W.A. No.1411/09, which was dismissed as withdrawn as per Annexure A6 judgment, which reads as follows: “After arguing the matter for some time, learned counsel for the appellants seeks permission to withdraw the Writ Appeal with liberty to pursue the other statutory remedies, if any, available to him before the appropriate authority. With that liberty reserved in favour of the appellants, the Writ Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.” 2. The petitioners in the review petition filed a review petition against that judgment also, which was disposed of by Annexure A7 judgment, which reads thus: “This review petition is at the instance of the appellants in the writ appeal. It is contended that subsequent to the disposal of the writ appeal, the Revenue Divisional Officer has issued Annexure A6 notice to comply with the directions issued by this court in W.P.(C).No. 36235/2007 which was the subject matter of the writ appeal. 2. Learned counsel submits that the said notice issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer will cause irreparable loss and hardship to the review petitioners. We are afraid the above contention is wholly misconceived and untenable, to say the least. The scope and ambit of review is well delineated. The writ appeal was dismissed as withdrawn reserving liberty to the appellants to pursue the other statutory 2 remedies, if any, before the statutory authorities. It is too late in the day for the petitioners to come up before this court seeking the aid of review jurisdiction and try to reopen the entire matter. 3. We do not find any ground to review the judgment especially since the appeal was withdrawn when it came up for admission.” In fact pursuant to the judgment in the writ appeal, the petitioners in the review petition had filed a petition before the appropriate authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, in respect of which also, the petitioners have filed a writ petition which is pending. In the above circumstances, I do not find any grounds for review of my judgment. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge