IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2009 / 15TH ASWINA 1931 RP.No. 867 of 2009(H) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.23712/2009 Dated 19/08/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): 7TH RESPONDENT IN WPC. -------------------------------------------- EMMAY PROJECTS(INDIA)PVT.LTD, ROOM.XIII/1/28 PUZHAKKAL DESOM, AYYANTHOLE VILLAGE AYYANTHOLE-680 003, THRISSUR REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR YUSAFALI M.A,THROUGH THE POWER OF ATTORNE Y HOLDER MUHAMMED IQBAL K.S,(WRONGLY DESCRIBED AS M.A.YUSAFALI, PROPRIETOR, M.K.GROUP, NATTIKA) BY ADV. SRI.C.E.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESP.2 TO 7 IN THE WPC. --------------------------------------------------- 1. RAVINDRANATHAN, S/O.GOPI, ERANEZHATHU VENGALIL HOUSE, PERINGOTTUKARA, VADAKKUMURI THRISSUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NATTIKA VILLAGE, NATTIKA. 6. CI OF POLICE, VALAPPAD POLICE STATION, VALAPPAD. 7. M/S.TRICOT MILLS LTD, NATTIKA, REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECOT, TRICOT MILLS, NATTIKA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. BINOY CHANDRAN. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/10/2009 ALONG WITH RP NO. 878 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- RP NO. 867 & 878 OF 2009 IN WP(C) No. 23712 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The above Revision Petition has been filed by the 7th and 6th respondents in the Writ Petition respectively; stating that possession of the property in question is not with the Writ Petitioner as contended in paragraph 4 of the Writ Petition and that the same is actually vested with the 7th respondent who purchased the property from the 6th respondent in the Writ Petition. It is stated that, they are actually aggrieved by the order of 'status quo' passed by this Court while relegating the Writ Petitioner to avail the statutory remedy by way of revision before the Government under Section 83(2) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. 2. Obviously, the Writ Petition was disposed of on 19.08.2009 declining interference; specifically referring to the alternate remedy by way of revision before the Government and the merits of the case were not at all dealt with. No observation was made, even with regard to the possession of the property. What was ordered by this Court was only to have the Revision Petition considered on merits, if filed within time, as RP NO. 867 & 878/2009 2 in WP(C) 23712/2009 provided under Section 83(2) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act and to maintain 'status quo' till such time. There is absolutely no error as apparent on the face of the records and no interference is called for in the Review Petitions. Both the petitions are dismissed accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc