IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 4TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 13TH BHADRA 1930 RP.No. 947 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CRP.48/1997 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER /3RD RESPONDENT ------------------------------- K. CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI, S/O. SANKARA PILLAI, VETTENTHIYIL PUTHEN VEEDU, THAMARAKUDY, KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.K.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR ( PARTY ) RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS 1,2 , 4 AND THE REVISION PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. SURENDRA PILLAI, KOOPARAKIZHAKKETHU VEEDU, KALAYAPURAM, MYLOM, KOTTARAKKARA. 2. RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI, SHANKARAMANGALATHU VEEDU, THAMARAKUDY, KOTTARAKKARA. 3. RAMACHANDERAN PILLAI, C/O. SURENDRAN PILLAI, KOOPARAKIZHAKKETHU VEEDU, KALAYAPURAM, MYLOM, KOTTARAKKARA. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,J. ------------------------ R.P. NO.947/2008 IN C.R.P.No.48/1997 ------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of of September, 2008 O R D E R Sri.K.Chandrasekharan Nair, the review petitioner is present in person. He addressed me on the various grounds raised in the review petition. He submitted that he has been in absolute and uninterrupted possession of the property having an extent of 3.50 acres referred to in my order and that he has perfected title over that property by long adverse possession. Despite the strenuous submissions made by Sri. Chandrasekharan Nair, I am unable to find any infirmity about my order justifying invocation of jurisdiction for review under Order 47 Rule 1. It is seen that it was only an order of remand which was passed by me and I had given opportunity to the petitioner for adducing evidence which may substantiate his claim of having perfected title by adverse possession over the property having extent of 3.50 acres. He submitted that he is yet to receive notice from the Taluk Land Board pursuant to the R.P. .No. 947/2008 2 order of remand passed by this court. 3. Under the above circumstances, even as I decline to admit the Review Petition since no grounds are made out, there will be a direction to the 4th respondent Government to ensure by issuing appropriate directions to the Taluk Land Board or to any other higher authority that the directions in my order dated 7/1/2005 are complied with at the earliest. The Review Petition will stand dismissed. (PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE) dpk