IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2011 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1933 RP.No. 360 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.36863/2010 Dated 03/01/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONERS IN THE WPC ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. NARAYANAN EZHUTHASSAN, AMMATHODI VEEDU, EZHUVANTHALA P.O., NELLAYA, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKADU. 2. PARAMAN EZHUTHASSAN, AMMATHODI VEEDU, AMMATHODI VEEDU, EZHUVANTHALA P.O., NELLAYA, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKADU. BY ADV. SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI SMT.ASWATHI APPUKUTTAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN THE WPC ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, PALAKKAD. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RP NO.360/11 APPENDIX REVIEW PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS ANNEXURE A1: THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 3.1.2011 IN WPC NO.36863/10 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ R.P.No.360 OF 2011 IN W.P.(C) NO. 36863 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 20th day of June, 2011 O R D E R WP(C) No.36863/2010 filed by the petitioners herein was dismissed by judgment dated 03/01/2011. The reason for declining the prayer to direct the restoration of the land, which was the subject matter of OA No.903/1975 was the alleged mistake in the survey number and boundary mentioned in the Tribunal's order and land in the possession of the petitioners. Taking note of the said fact, this Court held that restoration in pursuance to the Tribunal's order cannot be ordered and on that basis, the writ petition was dismissed. 2. It is now pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that steps have already been taken to get the aforesaid mistake corrected and that once the mistake is corrected, liberty should be given to the petitioners to initiate steps for restoration of the land in question. 3. In the writ petition relief was declined only because of the mistake noticed above. Once mistakes are got corrected, it is RP No.360/11 :2 : always open to the petitioners to seek remedies that are available to them in law for the implementation of the order of the Tribunal in OA 903/1975 and the judgment in the writ petition does not stand in their way. 4. Therefore, there is no reason to grant any liberty as sought for in the review petition. Review petition is closed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp