IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2011 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 RP.No. 910 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.17567/2010 Dated 02/12/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------- P.VASU, S/O. LATE KANNAN, AGED 65 YEARS, PUTHANPURAYIL HOUSE, GORIMOOLA, ERUMATHERUVU, MANANTHAVADY P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ELDHO PAUL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, WAYANAD-670 645. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, MANANTHAVADY, NORTH WAYANAD-670645. 3. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, NORTH WAYANAD. (IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 3RD RESPONDENT)., PIN-670 645. GP SRI. MOHAMMED SHAH THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... R.P.910/2011 in W.P.(C).17567/2010 .............................................. Dated this the 20th day of December, 2011 ORDER W.P.(C).17567/2010 was disposed of by judgment dated 2.12.2011. In this Review petition filed by the review petitioner, two errors in the judgment have been pointed out. 2. One is that though the Divisional Forest Officer, North Wayanad, was impleaded by order dated 2.12.2011 in I.A.19126/2011, he has not been shown as a party in the cause title to the judgment. On verification of the order sheet, the said submission is found to be correct and therefore to that extent, the error in the judgment needs to be corrected. 3. The second mistake pointed out by the learned counsel is that in paragraph 3 of the judgment, the third respondent has been directed to fix the revised value of the land instead of fixing the revised tree value. This mistake is confirmed by the learned Government Pleader also. Therefore, the direction in the judgment requiring the third respondent to fix the value of the land will stand R.P.910/11 2 modified as one requiring the third respondent to fix the revised tree value in the land. With the aforesaid modifications in the judgment, the Review Petition will stand disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs /true copy/ P.A. To Judge