IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2008 / 14TH SRAVANA 1930 RP.No. 817 of 2008(F) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.12068/2008 Dated 09/04/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/NOT A PARTY IN THE WRIT PETITION ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REP. BY ITS SECRETARY BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. HANEEFA KUTTY, CHENCHIRA KUZHI VADAKKATHIL PADINJATTA KIZHAKKU, SOORANAD NORTH 2. MATHAI, KATTOOR PUTHEN PURA PADIJATTA KIZHAKKU, SOORANAD NORTH 3. GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, INDIRA BHAVANAM NADUVILE MURI, PROUVAZHY 4. SAMUEL, PLAVILAYIL, PADIJATTU KIZHAKKU SOORANAD NORTH 5. RAHIM, KALEELAYYATHU KIZHAKKATHIL PADINJATTU KIZHAKKU, SOORANAD NORTH 6. KASIM RAVUTHER, MULLASSERI VEEDU KAMBALADI, PORUVAZHY 7. SIVADASAN, PANACHA VILAYIL, PADINJATTA KIZHAKKU SOORANAD NORTH 8. THANKACHAN, KANJIRAKKATTU THARAYIL PADINJATTA KIZHAKKU SOORANAD NORTH 9. RAMAN, PALAVILAYIL, KAMBALADI, PORUVAZHY 10. RAHIM PILLAI, THUNDIL KIZHAKKATHIL VADAKKE MURI, PORUVAZHY 11. KUNJU KUNJU, CHARUVILA PADINJATTA KIZHAKKU, SOORANAD NORTH 12. SAINUDEEN, CHENJIRA KUZHI VADAKKATHIL, PADINJATTA KIZHAKKU SOORANAD SOUTH 13. ASHRAF, SAFE HOUSE ERAVICHIRA, SOORANAD NORTH 14. THE ADDL. TAHSILDAR OFFICE OF THE ADDL. TAHSILDAR KUNNATHOOR, SASTHAMCOTTA 15. THE TAHSILDAR, OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR KUNNATHOOR, SASTHAMCOTTA 16. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR OFFICE OF THE DIST. COLLECTOR, KOLLAM BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------- R.P. No. 817 OF 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 5th August, 2008. O R D E R Petitioner is seeking review of the judgment in W.P(C) 12068/08. According to the petitioner, the proceedings impugned in the writ petition were initiated following Annexure-III order in W.P (C) No: 34537/2007. It is also contended that the land belongs to Devaswom and that the title has been settled in its favour by various judgments rendered by the competent civil courts. 2. A reading of the judgment, the review of which is sought for by the petitioner, shows that this Court was only concerned with the denial of an opportunity to the petitioners in the writ petition and it is on that short ground, the impugned order has been interfered with and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration. Therefore, by the judgment in the writ petition, none of the right of the review petitioner is affected. 3. Since the review petitioner now asserts its claim of title over the property in question, it is necessary that their views also are heard by the competent authority, in pursuance to the directions R.P.NO: 817/08 2 contained in the judgment. It is also necessary that the dispute should be given a finality on an expeditious basis. 4. Accordingly, the review petition is disposed of directing that the first respondent in the writ petition shall finalise the proceedings as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within four weeks from the date of production of a copy of the order. It is also directed that before orders are passed, along with the petitioners in the writ petition, notice shall also be issued to the review petitioner and they should also be heard. Review petitioner shall produce a copy of this order before the first respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE jj