IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2011 / 30TH POUSHA 1932 RP.No. 48 of 2011(B) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.9259/2009 DATED 17/09/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN WPC: --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, ERNAKULAM. 2. TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.P.N. SANTHOSH. RESPONDENT/PETITIONER WPC: -------------------------------------------------- ABDULLA & UMMER ESTATES (P) LTD., REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.23, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, CROSS, BANGALORE, A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, REP. BY ITS PRESENT MANAGING DIRECTOR, KURIACHAN CHACKO, 560 002. BY THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` R.P.No. 48 of 2011 in W.P.(C) No. 9259 of 2009 B ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 20th day of January, 2011 O R D E R Review petition has been filed by the respondents in the writ petition, mainly contending that on the strength of the judgment, petitioner is insisting that tax should be accepted for 19.916 cents of land as against the actual extent of only 16 cents. 2. A reading of the judgment shows that this Court has only set aside Ext.P7 and has not pronounced on the actual extent of land, which belongs to the writ petitioner. Therefore, the judgment does not oblige the review petitioners to accept tax for any particular extent of land. In that view, I do not think that review of the judgment is called for. Review petition is closed. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge