IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2009 / 28TH SRAVANA 1931 RP.No. 769 of 2009(T) ------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WP(C).3738/2008 Dated 28/01/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/R1 TO R4 IN WPC: ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION AND ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION SECTION, BALARAMAPURAM. 4. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, BUILDING SECTION, NEYYATTINKARA. BY MR. A.J. ANTONY, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER. RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN WPC: -------------------------------- MAYAKUMARI M., THUNDIVILAKATHU VEEDU, NEMOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. (SWEEPER WORKING AS OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION SECTION, BALARAMAPURAM.) BY MR. PIRAPPANCODE V. SUDHEER, ADVOCATE. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- Review Petition No.769 OF 2009 IN W.P.(C) No.3738 OF 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of August, 2009. O R D E R Heard the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. 2. This review petition is filed on the ground that Annexure-I document could not be produced along with the counter affidavit. The measured area going by Annexure-I is only 76.17 sq. metres. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-writ petitioner submitted that non production of a material along with the counter affidavit is not a ground to review the judgment. It is pointed out that the writ petitioner was not given any information or notice before the alleged measurement was taken on 02.08.2007 as mentioned in Annexure-I. It is also submitted that the writ petitioner has no objection in conducting a fresh measurement in her presence. R.P. No.769/2009 2 4. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner is well founded in his submission that the measurement was taken not in the presence of the writ petitioner. It is mentioned in Annexure-I itself that the sweeping area measurements of Minor Irrigation Section Office at Balaramapuram was verified by the officers of the Wing on 02.08.2007 'in the presence of concerned officers'. Evidently, the writ petitioner was not given notice and therefore, her presence was not procured. 5. In that view of the matter, Annexure-I cannot be said to be final. Apart from that, the judgment does not suffer from any apparent error for allowing the review petition. The grounds stated are not sufficient to review the judgment. But, in the interest of justice, a fresh measurement has to be taken, since the valuable rights of the petitioner in the writ petition will have to be adjudicated based on the said measurement. Therefore, there will be a direction to the competent among the respondents 2 to 4 in the writ petition namely, petitioners 2 to 4 in the review petition to have a fresh measurement of the R.P. No.769/2009 3 sweeping area in terms of the orders in force with due notice to the writ petitioner. The same shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. All the other directions issued in the judgment will stand. The review petition is disposed of accordingly. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp