IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 12TH DECEMBER 2011 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA 1933 RP.No. 816 of 2011(T) ------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.25957/2011 Dated 14/10/2011 .................. REVIEW PETITIONER / NOT PARTY IN WP(C) : ------------------------------------------------------------------- ILLIYAS, S/O.SULAIMAN, AGED 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT BEEFATHUMMA MANZIL, KARAYAMKAD, VADAKKANCHERY, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. VISAK.S, MANCHOLA HOUSE, MANIKKAPADAM, VADAKKANCHERY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 001. 2. THE SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY, VADAKKANCHERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PALAKKAD 678 001. 3. TAHSILDAR, ALATHUR - 6 4. DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, PALAKKAD. 5. TALUK SURVEYOR, ALATHUR. R1 BY ADV. SRI. M.V. BOSE R3 TO R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. MOHAMMED SHAFI M. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- RP.No. 816 of 2011(T) APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS : ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF IMPLEADING PETITION DATED 19/10/2011 ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF REPLY GIVEN BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VADAKKANCHERY ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH. ANNEXURE 4 TRUE COPY OF NEWS PAPER REPORT PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DATED 29/6/2011 ANNEXURE 5 TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPH OF THE ILLEGALLY CONSTRUCTED BUILDING OF THE WRIT PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. ------------------------------- R.P.NO.816 OF 2011 IN W.P.(C). NO.25957 OF 2011 ------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2011 O R D E R Review petitioner is not a party in W.P.(C).No.25957/2011. The lst respondent in the review petition is the petitioner in the said writ petition. Writ Petition was filed seeking to quash Ext.P11 and for a direction commanding the lst respondent, who is the Special Grade Panchayat Secretary, to number the building and to issue occupancy certificate to the petitioner. This Court by judgment dated 14th October, 2011 disposed of the writ petition. This Court noticed the fact in paragraph 3 of the judgment that in view of the complaints lodged by some local and nearby residents alleging violation of the Building Rules, the Secretary of he Panchayat requested the Tahsildar to fix the road boundary. This Court also noticed the fact that the boundary was fixed after measurement. Ext.P10 in the writ petition is the communication issued by the District Survey Superintendent to the Additional Tahsilar, Alathur. This Court noticed the fact that the Taluk -2- R.P.No.816/2011 Surveyor measured the property in the presence of the PWD authorities, Panchayat authorities and in the presence of the petitioner. This Court considered the contentions of the respective parties and found that the road portion is measured and boundary was fixed in the presence of the PWD officials and Panchayat officials and others and that the boundary was fixed by the Taluk Surveyor, after measurement. This Court directed the lst respondent-Panchayat Secretary to number the building and issue occupancy certificate to the petitioner. 2. Review Petition is filed by the third party alleging that the building was constructed encroaching into the public road at Kammanthara Junction. According to him, as a result of the encroachment of the lst respondent, who is the writ petitioner, the width of the road is reduced to 6 metres and that despite such encroachment, the lst respondent-Secretary issued building permit due to extraneous consideration. Alleging that the true facts are not brought to the notice of this Court, the petitioner sought to review the judgment of this Court passed in W.P.(C). -3- R.P.No.816/2011 No.25957/2011. This Court, after hearing all the parties, decided the matter on merits finding that there was measurement and fixation of boundary. The writ petition was disposed of extending the reliefs to the petitioner after considering the matter on merits. In view of the facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to review the judgment in W.P.(C).No.25957/2011 on merits. It is true that the review petitioner is not a party in the writ petition. In the writ petition, the respondents are; Panchayat Secretary, Tahsildar, District Survey Superintendent and Taluk Surveyor. After hearing all the respondents, the writ petition was disposed of on merits. In these circumstances, the review petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the review petitioner to pursue his remedies, if any, available to him in accordance with law. HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE. kcv.