IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 7TH ASWINA 1933 RP.No. 683 of 2011(W) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.17390/2011 Dated 28/06/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER : RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE (R) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 001 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE, KUYILIMALA, IDUKKI, PIN 685 602 3. THE TAHSILDAR, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, UDUMANCHOLA, PIN 685 554 4. THE TAHSILDAR, LAND ASSIGNMENT, DEVIKULAM, NIRMITHY KENDRA BUILDING, DEVIKULAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 613. BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER MS. SUSHEELA BHAT RESPONDENT : PETITIONER ------------------------- ELDHOSE, S/O. YOYAKKI, AGED 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT KUMMATT HOUSE, CHINNACKANAL, SINGKANDAM.P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. N.M.VARGHESE THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ R.P. No. 683 of 2011 In W.P (C) No . 17390 of 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 29th September , 2011 ORDER This Review Petition has been preferred at the instance of the State, mainly pointing out that, the verdict passed by this Court at the admission stage, directing to have disposed of the application (Ext. P4) preferred by the petitioner for assignment and to maintain 'status quo' till then, is liable to be re-considered for the reason that such an application has never been filed by the writ petitioner. 2. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 22.09.2011, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner sought time to produce proof. Accordingly, I.A. No. 589 of 2011 has been filed, producing Annexures I and II., which are the photocopies of the application dated 24.09.2011 made before the concerned Village Officer and its receipt dated 27.09.2011. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has subsequently been served with copies of the relevant extracts of the register from the village office and that he wants to adduce further evidence as well. 3. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Review Petitioner/State submits that the original register does not R.P. No. 683 of 2011 in W.P. (C) No. 17390 of 2011 : 2 : contain any such material and further that the concerned land for assignment sought for by the petitioner is about five acres, which is not liable to be granted under any circumstance. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, this Court finds that the matter requires to be heard in detail with regard to the rival contentions. 5. In the said circumstances, the direction given by this Court to have Ext. P4 considered and finalized by the concerned respondent is recalled. The Review Petition is allowed and the Writ Petition is restored to file for being considered by the appropriate Bench. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything with regard to the merits of the case. The 'status quo' will continue only till the matter is listed before the appropriate Bench. Sd/ P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd /True copy/ P.A. to Judge