IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2010 / 8TH ASHADHA 1932 RP.No. 533 of 2010(N) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.11938/2010 Dated 06/04/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER IN THE WRIT PETITION ----------------------------------------------------- MUHAMMED SHERIF, S/O.MUHAMMED ALIAS BAVA, CHELAMPRA.P.O, THIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THIRUR. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, THIRURANGADI TALUK, THIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHELAMPRA VILLAGE, THIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. AHAMMED KUTTY, S/O.UNNIKOYA, KALLUVALAPPIL HOUSE, IDIMUZHIKKAL, PIN-673634. 5. SAIDALAVI, S/O.MUHAMMED MASTER, KOPLAKKATTU HOUSE, CHELAMBRA.P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 6. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. R1 TO R3 & R6 BY G.P. SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.No.533/2010 in W.P.(C) No. 11938 of 2010-N - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of June, 2010. O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the Review Petitioner and the learned Govt. Pleader. 2. This Court, as per the judgment rendered on 6.4.2010, directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to take a decision on Ext.P10, with notice to respondents 4 and 5, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It is pointed out in the review petition that the Government has issued a circular dated 5.4.2010 wherein certain guidelines have been framed with regard to the principles to be adopted while considering the application for permit, etc. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the review petitioner that in the light of the new guidelines, no permit is required for the petitioner to remove earth from his own land. But, as there is no mention in the judgment about the circular dated 5.4.2010, the Revenue Divisional Officer is refusing to consider the effect of the same. 3. The circular was not available when the writ petition was heard. rp 533/2010 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer will consider the stipulations in the circular dated 5.4.2010 also and their applicability, while considering the claims of the petitioner. To that extent, the judgment is modified. The review petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/