IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2010 / 9TH ASHADHA 1932 RP.No. 571 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.17356/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- YORK PROPERTIES & DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR K.V.ABDUL AZIZ, BELAIR APARTMENTS, THEVARA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. MR.V.V.ASOKAN MR.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. 3. TAHASILDAR, KOTTAYAM. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, VIJAYAPURAM, KOTTAYAM. 5. VIJAYAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIJAYAPURAM, KOTTAYAM. 6. PRESIDENT, VIJAYAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, VIJAYAPURAM, KOTTAYAM. 7. PALLOM BLOCK PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, PALLOM, KOTTAYAM. 8. THE CONVENOR, KARANI DRINKING WATER PROJECT, OFFICE OF THE PALLOM BLOCK PANCHAYATH, PALLOM, KOTTAYAM. ADV.MR. P.NARAYANAN – GOVT. PLEADER MR. SARIN GEORGE THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ALONG WITH W.P.(C)NO.17356 OF 2009 ON 30/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------ R.P.NO.571 OF 2010 & W.P.(C) No.17356 OF 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of June, 2010 ORDER This review petition is filed by the petitioner in the writ petition seeking review of my judgment dated 11.6.2010. That writ petition was filed challenging Ext.P12 order passed by the District Collector under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 as also Ext.P13 order of the Revenue Divisional Officer for implementation of Ext.P12 order. I disposed of the writ petition holding that the petitioner has an effective alternate remedy by way of appeal before the District Collector as provided under Section 21 of the Act. The petitioner now submits that what the petitioner challenges is not the order under Section 20, but the order under Section 13 against which no appeal would lie under Section 21. Therefore, the petitioner seeks review of my judgment. 2. I have considered the contentions of the petitioner. Ext.P12 is a composite order under Section 20 as well as under R.P.NO.5671 & W.P.(C)N.17356/09 2 Section 13. It appears that the petitioner is aggrieved only the order under Section 13. But still the petitioner has a right of revision before the Government under Section 28 of the Act, against that part of Ext.P12 under Section 13. Therefore, the judgment is recalled and modified to the effect that without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file a revision under Section 28 before the Government, the writ petition is dismissed. I further direct that to enable the petitioner to file a revision and seek interim orders, the interim order passed in this writ petition would continue to be in force for a period of one month from today. I also direct the Government to exclude the period during which the writ petition and review petition was pending before this Court for the purpose of computing limitation for filing revision under Section 28 of the Act. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd R.P.NO.5671 & W.P.(C)N.17356/09 3 R.P.NO.5671 & W.P.(C)N.17356/09 4