IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 14TH MAGHA 1932 RP.No. 76 of 2011(N) -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.17336/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONERS: --------------------------------------------------------- 1. M.S.MARTIN, S/O.M.K.SEBASTIAN, RESIDING AT MATTAMMEL HOUSE, VAZHAKKALA, KOCHI-21. 2. M.S.ANTONY, S/O.M.K.SEBASTIAN, RESIDING AT MATTAMMEL HOUSE, VAZHAKKALA, KOCHI-21. 3. M.S.THOMAS, S/O.M.K.SEBASTIAN, RESIDING AT MATTAMMEL HOUSE, VAZHAKKALA, KOCHI-21. 4. M.S.JEROME, S/O.M.K.SEBASTIAN, RESIDING AT MATTAMMEL HOUSE, VAZHAKKALA, KOCHI-21. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY SRI.ADEEP ANWAR RESPONDENTS:RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY (REVENUE DEPARTMENT), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE, VAZHAKKALA. (.............2) -: 2 :- 5. MR.P.V.JOSE, PULLUKKARAN HOUSE, KOTTANNELLUR, TRICHUR DISTRICT. 6. V.V.GOPALAKRISHNAN, 28/1099, RATNASREE, KEEZHIPALLY CROSS ROAD, KOCHI-20. 7. N.K.SUKUMARA PILLAI, AVITTOM, VALANJAMBALAM, KOCHI-16. 8. S.OMANA AMMA, AVITTOM, VALANJAMBALAM, KOCHI-16. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN R5 TO R8 BY SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Review Petition No.76 of 2011 in WP(C).No.17336 of 2010-N. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3rd February, 2011. O R D E R The writ petition was closed as infructuous on the basis of submission made by learned counsel appearing for the respondents. There was no representation for the petitioner during two consecutive postings. According to the petitioner, the matter has not become infructuous and the nonappearance was not willful. Therefore the review is sought for. 2. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 to 8 still sustain the view that the matter has become infructuous. However, I am of the opinion that the issue can be considered after restoring the writ petition. 3. Therefore the Review Petition is allowed and the Writ Petition is hereby restored. Post the writ petition after three weeks. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, (Judge) Kvs/-