IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 26TH BHADRA 1931 RP.No. 885 of 2009(K) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.21944/2009 Dated 04/08/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER: 4TH RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------------------- THE VICAR, ST.JOSEPH'S CHURCH, THIRUNALLOOR PO, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. MR. S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT. N.SANTHA MR. PETER JOSE CHRISTO MR. S.A.ANAND RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. BETTY KUNJUMON, W/O.KUNJUMON, AGED 41 YEARS, KURISINKAL HOUSE, KR.PURAM PO, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DIST. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, CHERTHALA. 4. THE TALUK SURVEYOR, CHERTHALA. R1 BY ADV. MR. M.RAMESH CHANDER R2 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MRS. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: kkms/ V.GIRI, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = R.P. No. 885 OF 2009 IN W.P.(C). No. 21944 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = Dated this the 17th day of September 2009. O R D E R The 4th respondent in the W.P.(C).No.21944/2009 has filed this review. The writ petition was filed alleging delay in the implementation of Ext.P3 order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer requiring the Additional Tahsildar to take steps to survey and demarcate the puramboke land by the Taluk Surveyor after notice to the 4th respondent and any other affected person. The writ petition was disposed of at the stage of admission, requiring the Additional Tahsildar to take further steps, as already directed in Ext.P3 proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer provided the same is still in force. The Additional Tahsildar was also directed to give notice to the 4th respondent therein (review petitioner herein). 2. It is contended by the review petitioner that thereafter the Taluk Surveyor visited the property for measurement and demarcation of puramboke land, but it seems that the puramboke land was a large extent and the Survey Authorities did not comply with the procedure laid down in Rule 41 of the R.P. No. 885 OF 2009 IN W.P.(C). No. 21944 OF 2009 2 Survey and Boundaries Rules. It is also contended that a proper measurement should have been conducted on the basis of Litho plans and that was not done. Finding that the review petitioner has encroached into an extent of 1.04 ares, a notice has now been issued to the review petitioner under Section 12 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act seeking removal of the encroachment. According to the review petitioner, a proper measurement has not been undertaken. 3. I heard learned Counsel for the review petitioner Mr. S.P.Aravindakshan Pillay and Mr. Ramesh Chander, learned Counsel for the writ petitioner. Mr. Ramesh Chander points out that the judgment which is sought to be reviewed does not suffer from any error apparent on it's face. No grounds for review have been made out. 4. I am of the view that the judgment does not as such warrant any review. I only directed the Additional Tahsildar to take further steps pursuant to Ext.P3 order dated 20.05.2009 provided the same has become final. The judgment did not seek to regulate the survey and measurement which were otherwise to be carried out even as per Ext.P2. In these circumstances, R.P. No. 885 OF 2009 IN W.P.(C). No. 21944 OF 2009 3 I am of the view that the direction issued in the judgment dated 04.08.2009 as such do not require any modification. 5. But I take note of the submission made by Mr. Aravindakshan Pillay. Annexure-I, which is a representation submitted by the review petitioner before the Revenue Divisional Officer challenging the correctness of the measurements made. That has not been looked into. It is also noteworthy that the Revenue Divisional Officer is the Appellate Authority under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act in relation to any proceedings taken by the Additional Tahsildar. 6. In these circumstances, the following directions are issued. (1) It is open to the review petitioner to prefer an appeal against any proceedings taken by the Additional Tahsildar pursuant to Ext.P3 in the writ petition as also the direction issued in the judgment dated 04.08.2009 before the Competent Appellate Authority. (2) If an appeal is preferred before the Revenue Divisional Officer, the second respondent in R.P. No. 885 OF 2009 IN W.P.(C). No. 21944 OF 2009 4 this review, within 3 weeks from today, the Revenue Divisional Officer Shall after notice to the writ petitioner also, take a decision thereon within one month. Status quo as regards the review petitioner shall be maintained till the said appeal is disposed of by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the order is communicated to the parties. It is made clear that the aforementioned directions are issued only in relation to the review petitioner and these need not operate as regards the other persons who are covered by Ext.P3 order. The Revenue Divisional Officer shall take into account Annexure-I also while dealing with the statutory Appeal in the manner aforementioned. (V.GIRI) JUDGE kkms/