IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 16TH BHADRA 1931 RP.No. 572 of 2004() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRP.2370/1996 Dated 20/01/2004 (AA 90/95 OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY(LAND REFORMS), THRISSUR) (OA.8/1986 OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM) .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN CRP: ---------------------------------------------------------- M.A.MALIKA, D/O. ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAI, MOOTHEDATHU, ELAMKULAM, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.SUBRAMANIAM SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.M.S.NARAYANAN SRI.P.T.GIRIJAN SRI.PRAMODH.R SMT.USHA NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1,2 & 3 IN CRP & LRS OF R2 DIED ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. T.K.VISHWANATHAN PILLAI, S/O. KRISHNA PILLAI, 36/2822, MOOTHEDATHU, ELAMKULAM, ERNAKULAM-682 017.(EXPIRED) ( R2 EXPIRED. R4 TO R7 ARE RECORDED AS THE LRS. OF THE DECEASED R2 VIDE ORDER DT. 11.10.06 IN R.P). 3. SARASWATHY AMMAL, W/O. T.K.VISHWANATHAN PILLAI, -DO-, (DIED ON 09-05-2004). 4. GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O. T.K.VISWANATHA PILLY, 36/2822, MOOTHEDATHU, ELAMKULAM, ERNAKULAM-682 017. RP 572/04 IN CRP 2370/96 5. VARALAKSHMI, D/O. T.K.VISWANATHA PILLAY, 36/2822, MOOTHEDATHU, ELAMKULAM, ERNAKULAM-682 017.(EXPIRED) (R5 EXPIRED.R4, R6 & R7 ARE RECORDED AS LRS. OF THE DECEASED R5 VIDE ORDER DT. 7.9.09 IN R.P.). 6. VEENAMBAL, D/O.T.K.VISWANATHA PILLAY, W/O. CHANDRAN, PAYYAPPILLIL HOUSE, KALOOR - KADAVANTHARA ROAD, ELAMKULAM, ERNAKULAM-682 017. 7. JAGATHAMBIKA, D/O.T.K.VISWANATHA PILLAY, 36/2822, MOOTHEDATHU, CHEMATHU ROAD, ELAMKULAM, ERNAKULAM-682 017. ADV. SRI.K.C.CHARLES FOR R2 AND R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.No.572 of 2004 in C.R.P.No.2370 of 1996 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 7th September, 2009 ORDER The Review Petition is filed against the order dated 20.1.2004 in C.R.P.No.2370 of 1996. Review petitioner is the petitioner in the above revision which was filed against the judgment rendered by the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Thrissur in A.A.No.90 of 1995 by which that authority upheld and confirmed the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.A.No.8 of 1986. The Land Tribunal, Ernakulam had allowed the application of respondents 2 and 3 for purchase of kudikidappu. Against the order passed in revision by this court, the petitioner had filed a Special Leave Petition as S.L.P.(c) No.10579 of 2004 before the Supreme Court. That S.L.P. was withdrawn to move a review petition before this court against the orders passed in the revision. In paragraph 4 of the order passed by this court disposing the revision it has been observed that the revision petitioner admitted “the respondents along with their children are residing in the building from 1960 to the exclusion of others.” That observation being pointed out and confronted at the time of hearing of the Special Leave Petition, petitioner requested for R.P.No.572/04 - 2 - withdrawing that petition for filing a review petition stating that no such submission was made before this court. Special Leave Petition was permitted to be withdrawn in view of the circumstances stated as above. Pursuant thereto, the above review petition has been filed seeking review of the previous order passed by this court under revision. 2. I heard the learned counsel on both sides. 3. The limited question that emerges for consideration in the review is whether an admission was made as stated in paragraph 4 of the order, and is it open to review and correction on any of the grounds canvassed by the petitioner. In the review petition filed I do not find any specific ground canvassing that an admission as stated above has not been made by the petitioner. On the contrary, the grounds canvassed in the review proceed as if the entire gamut of issues covered by the revision which was heard and disposed on merits are open to challenge and a rehearing of the revision is called for. The only question arising for to examine the merit of the review petition is whether there was an admission from the part of the petitioner as indicated above and nothing else. Not even an affidavit has been filed by the petitioner before this court to show that there was no such admission as stated in paragraph 4 of the order R.P.No.572/04 - 3 - disposing the revision. It is also seen from the judgment rendered by the Appellate Authority, which was impugned in the revision, it was admitted, as seen from paragraph 10 of the judgment, that the applicants to the O.A. started residence in the petition schedule building some time during the period 1960-62. Evidently, their occupation over the building from that period was not at all a disputed question in the proceedings. The Appellate Authority has found that the applicants have continuous occupation in the dwelling house in question from 1960-62 onwards and that finding was not even challenged in the memorandum of revision by raising any ground questioning its correctness. No such ground is raised in the memorandum of revision is a circumstance indicating in unmistakable terms that the occupation of the applicants in the O.A. in the building during the period from 1960-62 was never a matter in dispute at all. No circumstances whatsoever has been shown to me that the statement made in paragraph 4 of the order passed in the revision as indicated above is incorrect warranting a review of that statement. Review Petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE