IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2010 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 RP.No. 1149 of 2010(V) -------------------------------- [THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.27577/2010 DATED 06/09/2010] .................... PETITIONERS/NOT PARTIES IN W.P: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. CHELLAMMA, W/O.LATE KUTTAN PILLAI, THAYYIL PUTHEN VEEDU, PUNNAPRA P.O., ALAPPUZHA. 2. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, S/O.LATE KUTTAN PILLAI, DO. 3. SREELATHA, D/O.LATE KUTTAN PILLAI, DO. 4. SREELEKHA, D/O.LATE KUTTAN PILLAI, DO. 5. HEMACHANDRAN NAIR, S/O.LATE KUTTAN PILLAI, DO. BY ADV. SRI.A.KRISHNAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. M.ABDUL HAMEED, VALLABHA DAS COMPOUND, SEA VIEW WARD, ALAPPUZHA, NOW RESIDING AT PANACKALPURAYIDAM, VALIAKULAM WARD, BAZAR P.O., ALAPPUZHA-688 001. 2. THE TALUK SURVEYOR, TALUK OFFICE, AMBALAPPUZHA. 3. TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, AMBALAPPUZHA-688 565. Contd....2.. :-2-: R.P. NO. 1149/2010-V: 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, PARAVOOR-688 673. 5. DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA-688 562. R2 TO R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- R.P. No.1149 of 2010 in W.P (C) No.27577 of 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 17th December, 2010 O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the 1st respondent, the petitioner in W.P (C) No.27577 of 2010 and the learned Government Pleader. 2. The writ petition filed by the first respondent was disposed of directing that necessary action for implementation of Ext.P5 order passed by the Ambalapuzha Taluk Legal Services Committee for surveying and locating the five cents of land ordered to be assigned to the 1st respondent will be taken. 3. The review petitioners who were not parties to the writ petition complain that under the cover of judgment, the land in their possession is attempted to be surveyed and possession taken over. It is the case of the first respondent herein that the land assigned to him, is in the possession of the first respondent and that therefore the authorities cannot be faulted for the survey that is now proposed. R.P. No.1149 of 2010 in W.P (C) No.27577 of 2010 2 4. In my view, under the cover of survey that is ordered by this Court, even if any excess land is available in the possession of review petitioners, the possession thereof cannot be taken over. On the other hand, if they have any excess land, it is for the official respondents to take appropriate action against the review petitioners, in accordance with law. 5. Therefore, it is clarified that steps taken in pursuance to the directions of the judgment cannot affect the property in the possession of the review petitioners. It is also clarified that this judgment will not stand in the way of the official respondents in taking any action against the review petitioners if they have any land in excess of the title deed in their name. Review petition is disposed with the aforesaid clarifications. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE ma