IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2011 / 27TH SRAVANA 1933 RP.No. 219 of 2011(G) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.32619/2008 Dated 31/01/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): 7TH RESPONDENT ------------------------------------ SRI.MUTHARAMMAN DEVI TEMPLE DEVASWOM KURATTISSERY VILLAGE, MANNAR, CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, P.S.KUMAR, AGED 42 YEARS. BY ADV. SRI.KARTHIK S. ACHARYA SRI.NAVEEN THOMAS SRI.RENJITH THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 2-6 ------------------------------------------- 1. N.SANKARA PILLAI, AGED 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT KURUPPAM MADAM, KURATTISSERY VILLAGE, MANNAR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695004. 3. DIST. COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA. 4. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHENGANNUR, ALAPUZHA. 5. TAHAZILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPZHA. 6. VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, KURATTISSERY, MANNAR, CHENGANNUR. 7. MANNAR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MANNAR, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. GP SRI.M.H.HANIL KUMAR SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RP.No. 219 of 2011 APPENDIX ANNEXURES A1- TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 18.3.08 SUBMITTED BY TAHAZILDAR, CHENGANNUR BEFORE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHENGANNUR A2- TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 30.1.07 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE DISTRICT COLLECTOR FOR LAND ASSIGNMENT A3- TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 18.5.10 IS IN W.P.(C).9045 OF 2010 A4- TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 25.1.07 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.P.(C).26339/2006 A5- TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 29.11.08 OF SUB COURT MAVELIKKARA IN O.S.24/08 (True copy) P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... R.P.219/2011 in W.P.(C).32619/2008 .............................................. Dated this the 18th day of August, 2011 ORDER The writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 31.1.2011. Despite service of notice, the review petitioner who is the seventh respondent, had not entered appearance in this review petition. This failure is sought to be explained by stating that they had already entrusted the matter with their counsel and that it was on account of the lapse on the part of the counsel that they went unrepresented. In view of the explanation so offered, and also taking note of the fact that W.P.(C).22655/2008 filed by the Review Petitioner challenging Ext.P7 herein is pending, the judgment dated 31.1.2011 in W.P.(C).32619/2008 is recalled and the Review Petition is allowed. Post W.P.(C).32619/2008 along with W.P.(C).22655/2008, for hearing. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs