IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2009 / 2ND ASHADHA 1931 RP.No. 458 of 2009(Y) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.26670/2008 Dated 06/02/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS IN THE WPC -------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,KOZHIKODE. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE TAHSILDAR,REVENUE RECOVERY,CIVIL STATION,KOZHIKODE. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT SMITHA SUKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER IN THE WP(C) -------------------------------------- GEORGE JACOB,MATTOM HOUSE,MANASSERI, MUKKOM,KOZHIKODE. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN ------------------------------------------ Review Petition No.458 of 2009 in W.P.(C) No.26670 of 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2009 ORDER This review petition is filed by the State against my judgment dated 06.02.2009 in W.P.(C) No.26670/2008, in which I directed the State to re-convey the property purchased by them in revenue recovery proceedings for realization of abkari dues from the petitioner in the writ petition for Rupee 1 which due to the Government had been subsequently paid to the State by the petitioner in the writ petition as evidenced by Ext.P12, which has been accepted by the State. The review petition is now filed by the State taking a contention that they are not bound to re-convey the property under law. 2. I passed the judgment specifically on the ground that the State cannot, after receiving the defaulted amounts, retain the property purchased by them in revenue recovery proceedings for Rupee 1 for realising the very same amount. 3. In the above said circumstances I do not find any merit in the review petition. I also record the statement made by the learned Government Pleader that subsequently an order has R.P.No.458 of 2009 in WP(C)No.26670 of 2008 2 been passed directing re-conveyance of the property of the petitioner in the writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner submits that although he received an order, the document of re- conveyance has not been executed. In the above circumstances the review petition is dismissed. S.SIRI JAGAN JUDGE vgd