IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2009 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1931 RP.No. 1045 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN MFA.276/2001 Dated 10/03/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): APPELLANTS IN M.F.A: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CUSTODIAN & SPECIAL OFFICER, VESTED FOREST COMMITTEE, CALICUT, (NOW OLAVAKKODE CIRCLE, PALAKKAD - 2) BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER (FORESTS) SRI.M.P.PRAKASH RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------ 1. MRS. EATHAMMA DOMINIC, W/O. DOMINIC, MUKKADA HOUSE, NALLUNNAKAL.P.O, VAKATHANAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. THRESSIAMMA, W/O. THOMAS, -DO- 3. DR. ROY J. MUKKADA, S/O. JOYKUTTY, MUKKADA, -DO- 4. SHEERY GEORGE, S/O. DR. GEORGE, MUKKADA, -DO- THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A. K. Basheer & P. Bhavadasan, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.No. 1045 of 2008 in MFA.No. 276 of 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26th day of March, 2009. Order Basheer, J: State of Kerala and the Custodian and Special Officer, Vested Forests Committee, Calicut who were the appellants in MFA.No.276 of 2001 have preferred this petition for review of the judgment in the above appeal. 2. It is primarily contended by Sri.M.P.Prakash, learned Special Govt. Pleader (Forests) that this Court had committed a serious mistake in assuming as though the dispute raised by the petitioners/appellants before the Forest Tribunal was confined only to 2.65 acres of land. It is contended by the learned Special Government Pleader that the disputed extent is in fact 3.375 hectares. Over and above the above extent, 20 hectares of land were also the subject matter of the dispute, inasmuch as a notification dated May 8, 2001 had been issued notifying the said area as vested forest. According to the petitioners these two aspects were not considered by the Division Bench while rendering the judgment. Yet another contention raised by the learned Special Government Pleader is that the reliance placed by the Division Bench on A6 certificate was not at all justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. We have carefully perused the various grounds raised by the petitioners in the review petition. We have also gone through the judgment. A perusal of the judgment would show that the grounds urged by the appellants at the time of argument were in fact dealt with and a decision thereon was rendered. In our view, the attempt of the petitioners now is to re-agitate the entire matter on the basis of some materials which are in the RP.1045/2008. 2 realm of new facts and facts alone. Admittedly petitioners had not produced any of the above notifications which they are now referring to, before the Tribunal. Apparently the contentions now raised by them were not raised before the Tribunal. In that view of the matter the present application will not fall within the scope and ambit of review as contemplated under law. There is no merit in the review petition. It is accordingly dismissed. A.K. BASHEER Judge P. Bhavadasan Judge an.