IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2010 / 4TH ASHADHA 1932 RP.No. 515 of 2010() IN C.R.P.NO.645 of 2008 -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CRP.645/2008 Dated 15/01/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/REVISION PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------------------ 1. P.MEENAKSHI, AGED 80 YEARS, W/O.LATE A.ACHUTHAN, AYADATHIL HOUSE, KADALAYI, KANNUR (P.O.). 2. A.P.SUSHENAN, S/O.LATE A.ACHUTHAN, AGED 52 YEARS, MANCHAPPAN VALAPPIL HOUSE, KADALAYI (P.O.), KANNUR. 3. A.P.HARITHAN, S/O.LATE ACHUTHAN, AGED 50 YEARS, SEVAGRAM, KADALAYI (P.O.), KANNUR. 4. A.P.SUSRUTHAN, S/O.LATE ACHUTHAN, AGED 46 YEARS, AYADATHIL HOUSE, KADALAYI (P.O.), KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, TALIPARAMBA. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALIPARAMBA. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 5. FR.K.T.MATHEW, VICAR, ST.JOHN'S CHURCH, KUTTUR AMSOM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.B.RAMANAND ADV.SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL FOR R5 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- R.P.NO.515 OF 2010 & C.M.APPL.NO.346 OF 2010 IN C.R.P.NO.645 OF 2008 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of June, 2010 O R D E R The review petition is filed by the revision petitioners in C.R.P.No.645 of 2008 for reviewing of the order dated 15.1.2010 passed in the revision. This Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the revision, which was filed against the order passed by the Taluk Land Board dismissing a claim petition moved by the predecessor of the revision petitioners and later prosecuted by them under Section 85 (8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Ceiling proceedings covered by the case related to excess land to be surrendered by two land holders, namely, Smt.Vengayil Leelavathy Amma and Smt.Vengayil Lakshmi Amma. By way of registered deeds their property, portions of the excess land determined by the Taluk Land Board, had already been obtained by a company, in which the original claimant was the Managing Director, was the case advanced to substantiate the claim. It R.P.515/10 & C.M.APPL.346/10 2 was the further case of the claimant that the company had become defunct and thereby he was competent to raise the claim over the property determined as excess land. On the demise of the claimant, the claim petition was prosecuted by his legal heirs, wife and children, who are the present revision petitioners. After hearing both sides and considering the materials giving rise to the order impugned in the revision, finding no merit in the challenges raised, the revision was dismissed. Now the present review petition has been filed by the revision petitioners with a petition to condone delay of 49 days canvassing a case that an observation made in the order disposing the revision is likely to cause them prejudice and also injury in other pending proceedings as it may affect injuriously their right over other properties not covered by the ceiling proceedings. In a challenge by way of revision under Section 103 of the Land Reforms Act, the scope of which is very limited, this Court is expected to go into the question whether the authority, the Taluk Land Board, has decided any question of law or failed to decide such question, erroneously and not in accordance with law. That alone being the scope of the revision, R.P.515/10 & C.M.APPL.346/10 3 whatever be the observations made by this Court with reference to the claim raised over the land covered by the ceiling proceedings as to the incompetency of the claimant to raise a claim on behalf of the company, at the most can have relevance and consideration only with respect to the ceiling proceedings. The review petition hardly merits any consideration, I find no reason to condone the delay and entertain the review petition. So much so, both the delay petition and the review petition are dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp //true copy// P.A to Judge. R.P.515/10 & C.M.APPL.346/10 4