IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1932 RP.No. 105 of 2011(L) AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.37512/2010 Dated 17/12/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): 3RD PARTY: ---------------------------------------------------- LALITHA, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN, VADAKKEDATH HOUSE, AMBALAM ROAD, KOONAMTHAI, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR P.O., COCHIN-33. BY ADV. SRI.JESWIN P.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. T.S.MAJI, D/O.LATE SANKARANKUTTY & PARVATHY, R/AT THUNDIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PACHALAM, ERNAKULAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVSENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.695001 3. THE TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM.682011 R2 & R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.R. BINDU. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: kp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- RP.NO.105/2011 IN W.P.(C) NO.37512/2010 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of February, 2011 O R D E R The review petitioner was not a party to the writ petition. By judgment dated 17th December, 2010, the writ petition filed by the first respondent herein, the elder sister of the review petitioner, was disposed of directing consideration of Ext.P3 application made by her for mutation of the property mentioned therein. 2. In this review petition what is complained is that the petitioner herein also has a claim on the property and therefore she made Annexure-A2 representation to the Tahsildar objecting to the request of the first respondent. It is stated that having regard to the directions in the judgment, the 3rd respondent is refusing to take cognizance on Annexure-A2 and consider the same. 3. I heard the counsel appearing for the review petitioner and also the fist respondent. 4. In the nature of the dispute now raised by the review petitioner, it is only appropriate that the 3rd respondent should RP.No. 105/2011 :2 : consider the objection filed by the petitioner evidenced by Annexure-2. 5. Therefore, the judgment disposing the writ petition will stand reviewed to the extent directed the 3rd respondent to consider Annexure-A2 objection filed by the petitioner as and when Ext.P3 application mentioned in the judgment is taken up for consideration. Before orders are passed notice shall be given to the petitioner herein and also the first respondent. Review petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/