IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2011 / 7TH ASHADHA 1933 RP.No. 431 of 2011(B) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.8812/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- ELIZABETH NINAN, W/O. C.G. NINAN, AGED 52 YEARS, PANCHAYATH MEMBER, MALLAPUZHASSERY PANCHAYATH, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ANNAMMA SKARIA, AGED 64 YEARS, W/O SKARIA, AMBALATHINKAL HOUSE, PUNNAKAD MURI & P.O. MALLAPUZHASSERY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. PIN-689 646 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS, DIVISION, PATHANAMTHITTA. PIN-689645. 3. MALLAPUZHASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MALLAPUZHASSERY. PIN.689646 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. PIN-689645 GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. M.H.HARIKRISHNAN R1 BY ADV. MR. K.SHAJ MR. SAJJU.S THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN COME UP FOR ADMISSIION ON 28/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RP.No. 431 of 2011(B) APPENDIX -------------- PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES --------------------------------------- A1: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF TALUK SURVEYOR. A2: TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH PREPARED BY THE TALUK SURVEYOR IN SEUVEY NO.598. A3: TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX REGISTER IN REPECT OF SY. NO.598. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES : NIL. RKC. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------- R.P No.431 of 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of June, 2011 ORDER The Review Petition has been filed by one of the members of the Panchayat. The grievance of the petitioner is that widening of the road in the Panchayat is not facilitated because of the obstruction stated as being caused by the unit petitioner, referring to the verdict passed by this Courtin W.P.(C) No.881/2011 holding that, if the property of the petitioner was needed for any public purpose, the same shall be taken possession of, only in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. 2. The learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that the property of the petitioner is admittedly situated in Survey No.'597'/4 and '573'/2/3 as conceded in the Writ Petition and also as discernible from Ext.P1 title deed and Ext.P2 tax receipt. According to the review petitioner, there is no case for the writ petitioner that the latter's property is comprised in survey No.'598' and that the widening of the road is in respect of the 'Government purampoke land' comprised in survey No.'598', which in fact has no connection, whatsoever with the properties comprised in Survey Nos.'597' and '573'. R.P No.431/2011 2 3. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner, who is the respondent herein, also fairly concedes before this Court that, the writ petitioner does not have any case as to any property covered by survey No.598 and that the relief sought for and granted as per the judgment can be confined to the property of the petitioner in survey No.597/4 and 573/2/3 since the specific case of the petitioner was that the property comprised in survey No.598 alone was required for widening of the road (with regard to which, the writ petitioner does not have any grievance to be redressed). 4. In the above circumstances, the Review Petition is disposed of, making the above position clear as conceded by the parties to the proceedings, particularly the writ petitioner that, the benefit granted by virtue of the judgment dated 06-04-2011 in W.P.(C) 8812/2011 will stand in tact with reference to the property of the petitioner comprised in survey Nos.597/4 and 573/2/3 of Mallapuzhassery village and not with reference to the property covered by survey No.598. vdv P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE