IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2010 / 28TH ASHADHA 1932 RP.No. 633 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.31671/2001 Dated 16/12/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS & CUSTODIAN OF VESTED FORESTS, OLAVAKKODE CIRCLE, PALAKKAD-2, 4. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, NENMARA, PALAKKAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.P. PRAKASH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- M/S.NELLIYAMPATHY PLANTATIONS LTD.,REP BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.V.PADMANABHAN, MEENAMPARA ESTATE, P.O.NELLIYAMPATHY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. T.M. SREEDHARAN. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= R.P. No. 633 of 2010 in O.P. No. 31671 of 2001 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 19th day of July, 2010. O R D E R The State has filed this review petition against my judgment dated 16-12-2009 in O.P. No. 31671/2001. The relevant portion of the judgment reads thus: “In view of the order of the Division Bench in Ext. P2, the petitioner cannot now take a stand that he is entitled to 295 acres insofar as it has been specifically held in Ext. P2 that the petitioner is entitled to only more or less 200 acres. Naturally, if any part of that land has been notified under the Kerala Forests (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, such exclusion has to be agitated by the petitioner under the Act. I am not expressing any opinion on the same. However, the area to which the petitioner is entitled to be in possession of, according to the respondents as per law, has to be demarcated and shown to the petitioner within definite time. The respondents shall do the same within a period of two months from today.” The contention of the petitioner is that there is no land available as stated in the original application before the Forest Tribunal that can be restored to the petitioner. According to the learned Special Government Pleader (Forest), while filing the counter affidavit, a mistake has been committed. Therefore, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in M.M. Thomas v. State of Kerala, 2000 (1) KLT 799, this Court is bound to correct that mistake. 2. I have heard the parties. 3. I do not find any mistake in that judgment. There is already a Division Bench decision, which holds that the petitioner in the writ petition is entitled to restoration of more or less 200 acres. When the Division Bench has already held that the petitioner in the writ petition is entitled to restoration of 200 acres and that judgment has become final, it is idle for the State to contend that there is a mistake which R.P No. 633/2010 -: 2 :- requires to be corrected in respect to the area to be restored. I have not stated as to which land should be restored to the petitioner. In fact, I have left that to be decided by the respondents. I have only directed that the area to which the petitioner in the writ petition is entitled to be in possession of, according to the respondents , as per law, has to be demarcated and shown to the petitioner within a definite time. That area has to be more or less 200 acres as held by the Division Bench. I am unable to find anything wrong with that direction. In fact, if at all there is a mistake, it is not in my judgment and it is somewhere else. Therefore, I do not find any ground to review my judgment. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.