IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2009 / 6TH SRAVANA 1931 RP.No. 690 of 2009(W) ---------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.9624/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS IN WP(C). --------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, ADOOR. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KADAMPANADU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.P.K.BABU RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER IN W.P.(C) ------------------------- R.PRAKASH, S/O.V.RAGHAVAN, KONDURAZHIKATHU HOUSE, KADAMPANADU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. MR.N.N.SASI THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ........................................................................ R.P. No. 690 OF 2009 IN W.P.(C) No. 9624 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 28th July, 2009 O R D E R The Review Petition has been filed by the Government and others who were the respondents in the Writ Petition, stating that there are errors apparent on the face of the records, in the impugned judgment dated 25.06.2009, whereby the 'bought-in- land' was ordered to be returned to the Writ petitioner in view of the fact that the Government, as per Ext.P3 order, had decided to re-convey the same on receipt of the due amount from the petitioner and necessary directions were given to the District Collector in this regard. The main contentions raised in the Review Petition are three folds: (i) that the judgment passed by another learned Single Judge under similar circumstances (in W.P.(C) 26670 of 2008 ) and relied on by this Court while passing impugned judgment, has already been R.P. No. 690 OF 2009 IN W.P.(C) No. 9624 OF 2009 2 sought to be reviewed by filing a Review Petition and that it is pending. (ii) that this Court did not consider Annexures A1 to A3 Government Orders of 1965, 1968 and 1996, while passing the impugned judgment. (iii) that Ext.P3 order passed by the Government had not become final, as the Government was very much at liberty to have it varied, on giving necessary clarifications pursuant to the request made by the District Collector on his seeking for clarifications in the instant case. 2. The sequence of events has already been discussed in the impugned judgment itself, which hence is not reiterated, but for observing that the property of the petitioner subjected to revenue sale for realisation of the due amount, was bid in favour of the Government, invoking the relevant provisions under Section 50(2) of the Revenue Recovery Act, when there was no bidder. Subsequently, the entire liability was cleared by R.P. No. 690 OF 2009 IN W.P.(C) No. 9624 OF 2009 3 the petitioner and seeking for re-conveyance of the said land, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing OP.No. 23071 of 2002, which led to Ext. P2 judgment directing the Government to consider the matter and pass appropriate orders to re-convey the land. It was pursuant to Ext. P2 judgment, that the matter was considered by the Government, passing Ext. P3 order, whereby it was ordered in unequivocal terms to re-convey the land, having obtained the amount due from the petitioner and accordingly, necessary directions were given to the District Collector to effect re-conveyance. 3. As obvious from Ext. P3 order issued by the Government, nothing further remained to be considered by the District Collector, but to implement the same. But since Ext.P3 was not given effect to, the Writ petitioner chose to approach this Court, which led to the impugned judgment, following the dictum in W.P.(C)No.26670 of 2008. 4. It is true that a Review Petition (R.P.No.458 of 2009) was filed by the Government, seeking to review the judgment R.P. No. 690 OF 2009 IN W.P.(C) No. 9624 OF 2009 4 passed in W.P.(C)No. 26670 of 2008. But the said Review Petition is no more pending, as contended , the same having been considered and dismissed by this Court, as per the order dated 23.06.2009. It is also very much relevant to note from the said order (which has been called for and obtained from the Registry) that the learned Government Pleader, during the course of hearing had conceded before the learned Judge that, subsequent to the filing of the Review Petition, an order had already been passed directing re-conveyance of the property to the Writ petitioner. In other words, the challenge stated as raised by the Government seeking to review the dictum in W.P. (C) 26670 of 2008 was not pressed and admittedly, no further challenge was made either by filing any Writ Appeal or by pursuing any other exercise known to law. This being the position, the reliance placed on the Review Petition stated as filed against the verdict in W.P.(C)No.26670 of 2008 does not hold any water at all. 5. Relying on Annexures A1 to A3 Government Orders R.P. No. 690 OF 2009 IN W.P.(C) No. 9624 OF 2009 5 dated 30.06.1965, 09.02.1968 and 22.03.1996 respectively, it is contended that the Government is entitled to realise the 'market value' of the property for effecting re-conveyance and that such re-conveyance , even if permissible, is to be made in tune with the specific conditions as stipulated therein. The above Government Orders were very much available, when the judgment was passed by this Court in W.P.(C)No. 26670 of 2008, which however were not pressed into service. The position remained to be same, when the Review Petition (R.P.No. 458 of 2009) was filed and finally got dismissed, as per the order dated 23.06.2009. The position in the instant case is also not an exception and absolutely no pleading was raised with reference to the above Government Orders or as to the relative rights and liabilities between the parties. This being the position, particularly, when the Government chose to comply with the directions given by this Court in W.P.(C) 26670 of 2008, as taken note of by this Court while dismissing the R.P.No. 458 of 2009 vide order dated 23.06.2009, the reliance placed on the R.P. No. 690 OF 2009 IN W.P.(C) No. 9624 OF 2009 6 above Government Orders to sustain the present Review Petition is quite wrong and misconceived. 6. The learned Government Pleader submits that Ext. P3 order passed by the Government, ordering re-conveyance of the land has not become final. It is very much relevant to note that the same was passed by the Government, pursuant to Ext. P2 judgment. Absolutely no order whatsoever has been brought to the notice of this Court that the said order (Ext.P3) has been varied or modified in any manner. The only statement in the Review Petition as given in Ground 'B' is that the Government, while considering the clarification sought for by the District Collector 'may review” Ext.P3 order, after following the required procedure. This, by itself shows that Ext.P3 order was not varied or modified in any manner while passing the judgment in the present Writ Petition. That apart, the Government cannot have any such exercise, merely on the basis of 'pick and choose' policy, particularly when the Government has already declared before this Court in R.P.No.458 of 2009 that R.P. No. 690 OF 2009 IN W.P.(C) No. 9624 OF 2009 7 the Government had decided to comply with the dictum in W.P. (C)No.26670 of 2008, whereby re-conveyance was ordered and effected. The attempt of the Government, to blow hot and cold simultaneously, is not liable to be entertained under any circumstances. In the above facts and circumstances, the Review Petition lacks merits or bonafides. Hence interference is declined and the Review Petition is dismissed. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk