IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 29TH MAGHA 1931 RP.No. 30 of 2010() ------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WA.954/2003 Dated 07/10/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/ADDL. 8TH RESPONDENT: ---------------------- SHAKUNTHALA, W/O.PERUMAL, ATTUKADAVIL PUTHEN VEETTIL, VILLIKKADAVU, AYROOR, VARKALA. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT & RESPONDENTS 2 TO 7: --------------- 1. THE ELAKAMON PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, VARKALA, (NOW ELAKAMON GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, AYROOR, VARKALA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE BOARD OF REVENUE, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, TRIVANDRUM. 4. TAHSILDAR, CHIRAYINKIL TALUK, ATTINGAL-695 101. 5. M.SARASWATHY, W/O.LATE K.SATHYADEVAN, ATTUKADAVIL VEEDU, AYROOR P.O., VIA.VARKALA, TRIVANDRUM DIST. 6. M.S.KRISHNAKUMAR, S/O.LATE K.SATHYADEVAN, ATTUKADAVIL VEEDU, AYROOR P.O., VIA.VARKALA, TRIVANDRUM. 7. M.S.PADMAKUMAR, S/O.LATE K.SATHYADEVAN, ATTUKADAVIL VEEDU, AYROOR P.O., VIA.VARKALA, TRIVANDRUM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. R2TO4 BY G.P. SMT.T.B.MINI R5 TO 7 BY ADV. SRI.S.VINOD BHAT THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, V.K. MOHANAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- R. P. No. 30 OF 2010 in W.A. No. 954 of 2003 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of February, 2010 ORDER Ramachandran Nair, J. Review Petition is filed by additional 8th respondent in the Writ Appeal, who claims that out of 35 cents of land referred to in the judgment, 6.750 cents is in her possession and enjoyment for the last several decades. We notice that we have not considered the claim of additional 8th respondent as against the claim of additional respondents 5 to 7. While disposing of the Writ Appeal, all what we have held is that the Panchayath's claim that land was vested in them is not tenable and the predecessor of addl. respondents 5 to 7 who was in possession was entitled to assignment and on his death, legal heirs get the right. We have also not considered relative claims of additional respondents 5 to 8 in respect of 35 cents of puramboke land. We therefore feel that review petitioner's claim should be considered by the 4th respondent, namely, Tahsildar, at the time of assignment of land to the other 2 claimants, namely, additional respondents 5 to 7. We dispose of the Review petition by modifying the judgment with direction to the Tahsildar to conduct enquiry about the claim of the review petitioner as well and grant assignment to all the claimants to the extent of land held by each of them. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (V.K. MOHANAN) Judge. kk