IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 18TH JULY 2011 / 27TH ASHADHA 1933 RP.No. 406 of 2011(T) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.4952/2011 Dated 17/02/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER /3rd PARTIES : ----------------------------------------------- 1. KUNHIRAMAN, S/O RAMAN, AGED 60 YEARS VADAKKANMAR VEETTIL, PADAPPENAGAD PO, KOOVERI AMSOM, APDAPPENGAD DESOM, THALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT 2. KARUNAKARAN, S/O RAMAN, AGED 44 YEARS, ATHAYAKUNNUMMAL HOUSE, PADAPPENAGAD PO, KOOVERI AMSOM, APDAPPENGAD DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. LAKSHMI, D/O KALLYANI, AGED 62 YEARS, KALLA VEETTIL, KANHIRANGAD P.O., KUTTIYERI AMSOM, KANHIRANGAD DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. V.T.MADHAVANUNNI MR. V.A.SATHEESH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. C.J. JOSEPH, S/O JOSEPH, AGED 44 YEARS, CHAVANALIL HOUSE, ALAKODE P.O., ARANGAM, TALIAPRAMBA, KANNU 670 571 2. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT 670 141 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ALAKODE VILLAGE OFFICE, KANNUR DISTRICT 670 571 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MS. M. J. RAJASHREE THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ R.P. No. 406 of 2011 in W.P (C) No . of 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 18th July , 2011 ORDER The review petitioner, who was not a party to the Writ Petition has approached this Court, seeking to review the judgment dated 17.02.2011 in W.P.(C) No. 4952 of 2011, stating that, the verdict passed by this Court, enabling the Writ Petitioner to remit 'basic tax' has adversely affected the rights and interests of the review petitioner. 2. The grievance of the review petitioner is; that the property concerned is actually owned by the review petitioner; that a civil dispute is pending with regard to the property concerned and that the averments and allegations raised by the writ petitioner in the Writ Petition are not correct or sustainable. It is also stated that the appeal preferred by the review petitioner against Ext. P2 is still pending. It is also alleged that basic tax in respect of the property in question was being remitted by the predecessors in interest of the title, who executed title deed in favour of the review petitioner and this being the position, R.P. No. 406 of 2011 in W.P. (C) No. 4952 of 2011 : 2 : the writ petitioner has no right to enjoy the property by remitting tax, submits the learned counsel for the review petitioner. 3. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that, remittance of basic tax by itself will not improve the case or title of anybody. The parties are at liberty to agitate the matter before the Civil Court, where the issue is stated as pending. It is made clear that, no merit adjudication has been made by this Court with regard to the title over the property concerned and it is open for both the sides to pursue the matter before the Civil Court in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. The Review Petition is disposed of. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd