IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 15TH BHADRA 1933 RP.No. 587 of 2011(U) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.7766/2011 Dated 25/03/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): 4TH & 5TH RESPONDENTS IN WPC -------------------------------------------------- 1. IBRAHIMKUTTY RAWTHER, CHANTHANKOTTU MALAYIL, KUMANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. M.P.MOHAMMED KUNJU, PRESIDENT, KUMANAM NOORUL ISLAM MASJID KUMANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 035. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.KUNJIMOIDEENKUTTY SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SRI.JOJO GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. M.A.BABY, AGED 60 YEAS, S/O.LATE ABRAHAM, MADAPPATTU HOUSE, KUMANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM. PIN - 686 035. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN - 695 001. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 001. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 001. BY G.P. SMT. R. BINDU. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- R.P. No. 587 of 2011 in W.P.(c) No.7766 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of September, 2011 ORDER Basant, J. The writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 25/3/2011. Respondents 4 and 5 have filed this review petition. The matter was disposed of at the Bench after hearing arguments. The learned counsel for the review petitioners (i.e., respondents 4 and 5 in the writ petition) now submits that an inaccuracy has crept into the description of the contentions of respondents 4 and 5. The learned counsel submits that though the contention was specifically raised in paragraph-6 of the counter affidavit filed by the 5th respondent while explaining the contention at the Bar, a gap has occurred and consequently the R.P. No. 587 of 2011 -: 2 :- contention is not perfectly reflected in the judgment sought to be reviewed. The contention of respondents 4 and 5 extracted by this Court in paragraph-5 is not completely correct. The review petitioners only want that to be explained and clarified, to avoid any unnecessary disputes in future. 2. We have heard both sides. Our attention has been drawn to paragraph-5 of the judgment as also paragraph-6 of the counter affidavit filed by the 5th respondent. We do note that there is a gap between the contention raised in paragraph-6 of the counter affidavit and the contention extracted in paragraph-5 of the judgment. 3. We make it clear that the contention of respondents 4 and 5 is that they have constructed the compound wall leaving some extent of property belonging to the Wakf outside the compound wall. The short request in this review petition is that it may not appear that respondents 4 and 5 have accepted that all the properties lying outside their compound wall belongs to the petitioners. We accept the submission of the learned counsel for the review petitioners. We are satisfied that the review petition can be allowed and the above clarification can be accepted. 4. This review petition is hence allowed. We record that R.P. No. 587 of 2011 -: 3 :- the contention of respondents 4 and 5 is that there is 146 sq. links of property belonging to the Wakf outside the compound wall presently constructed for their property. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge