IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2009 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 RP.No. 1166 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.8.2009 IN CRP.441/2009 (AA 48/04 OF APPELLATE AUTHORITY(LR), THRISSUR.) (O.A.546/76 OF LAND TRIBUNAL, TALIKULAM.) .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS --------------------------------- 1. SURESH, S/O.ERANEZHETH PADINJATTIYIL SUDHAKARAN,CHERKKARA DESOM,NATTIKA VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. VENUGOPALAN, S/O.THAZHATHUPARA UNNERI, -DO- -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.M.A.T.PAI RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. RAMACHANDRAN EMBRANTHIRI, S/O.ATTAMKODATH ILLATH SANKARANARAYANAN EMBRANTHIRI,NATTIKA DESOM,NATTIKA VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK,TRICHUR DISTRICT. 2. HARIPRASAD, S/O.LATE THACHUNNI NAIR, BHAHAYIL,P.O.VALAPAD,PIN 680 567. 3. SREEKUMAR, S/O.LATE RAMA KRISHNA PILLAI, KARANCHERRY HOUSE,S.V.MARKET P.O., KARUNAGAPILLY,QUILON DISTRICT. 4. STATE OF KERALA. R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.No.1166 of 2009 in C.R.P. No.441 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 4th December, 2009 ORDER Petition is filed to review the order dated 26.8.2009 rendered in the above revision. Petitioners in the revision petition have filed the review petition. Challenge raised in the revision was against the dismissal of an appeal by the Appellate Authority against an order passed three decades ago by the Land Tribunal. Petitioners claiming to be members of the public questioned the assignment contending that the land assigned belong to a temple and the public has right over the temple and appurtenant land. The assigned land, according to the petitioners, were used by public as a play ground. The Appellate Authority holding that it has no right to entertain a public interest litigation canvassed by the petitioners in respect of an assignment which had been made more than three decades, dismissed the appeal. Revision against the judgment of that authority was dismissed. Now, the review petition is filed contending that the assignment of the land was made by the Land Tribunal overlooking Section 3(x) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Review R.P.No.1166/09 - 2 - Petition is filed against the order rendered by this court dismissing the revision petition canvassing a case that Section 3(x) of the Land Reforms Act is an absolute bar in passing an order of assignment in respect of temple lands. The impact of the proviso to Section 3(x) of the Land Reforms Act which protects the rights of the tenant in respect of the land under their enjoyment even if it belonged to the temple subject to the conditions specified is ignored by the counsel placing reliance of the main exemption clause alone. A review is not a rehearing of the case, but, only a relook of the order subject to limited grounds for entertaining an application thereof. Challenge raised by the petitioners as members of the public against the order of assignment passed by the Land Tribunal three decades ago was turned down by the Appellate Authority and this court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction found that no interference with the judgment rendered by the Appellate Authority, in the given facts of the case, is called for. There is no merit in the grounds canvassed in the review petition for review of the order dismissing the revision petition. Review Petition is dismissed. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE R.P.No.1166/09 - 3 -