IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2008 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1930 RP.No. 387 of 2008(G) --------------------- REVIEW PETITIONERS/ RESPONDENTS 4 AND 6 IN WPC -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. E.V.FRANCIS, AGED 49, S/O.VAREED ERALI HOUSE, MANJAPRA P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. E.V.POULOSE, S/O.VAREED EAST FORT, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN WPC ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.G.BABY, PADAYATTIL HOUSE NADUVATTAM KARA, MANJAPRA P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. THE TALUK SURVEYOR, TALUK OFFICE, ALUVA. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, CIVIL STATION KAKANAD. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD SRI.ASOK M.CHERIYAN FOR R1 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/04/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== R.P.No.387 OF 2008 IN W.P.(C) NO. 2585 OF 2008 ==================== Dated this the 4th day of April, 2008 O R D E R Respondents 4 and 6 in WP(C) No.2585/08 are the review petitioners. The writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage directing that the 1st respondent shall take necessary action for completing the survey and submitting a report called for by the 2nd respondent with notice to the affected parties. The direction was issued on the basis of Ext.P4. 2. Respondents now submit that in respect of this very same subject matter, OS 508/06 has been filed by the petitioner seeking recovery of the land which is the subject matter of Ext.P4. They also would state that WP(C) No.31582/06 concerning the very same land is pending before this court. According to them, it was without disclosing all these, the writ petition has been filed. 3. I am inclined to agree with the counsel for the review petitioner that these facts were not disclosed and had these details been RP 387/08 :2 : disclosed, the case would not have been disposed of without notice to the other side. In view of the above, I feel the judgment in WP(c) No.2585/08 deserves to be recalled and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp