IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 RP.No. 880 of 2010(T) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.10151/2010 Dated 07/06/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KADAKAMPALLY VILLAGE OFFICE. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.M.A.ASIF. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. JOHNY PAUL THOMAS JOHNSON, PROPRIETOR, BULGAR INDUSTRIES, PLOT NO.42, INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA, KOCHUVELI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, 8TH FLOOR, KSHB OFFICE COMPLEX, PANAMPALLY NAGAR, KOCHI. ADV.SASIDHARAN CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== R.P.No.880 of 2010 in W.P.(C).No.10151/2010 ================== Dated this the 24th day of November, 2010 O R D E R This review petition is filed by the State for review of my judgment dated 7.6.2010 in W.P.(C).No.10151/2010. In that writ petition, the 1st respondent herein contended that the concerned Village Officer and the Tahsildar are not taking steps to effect mutation of the properties purchased by the 1st respondent in a public auction conducted by the DRT. No counter affidavit was filed in the writ petition. By the judgment dated 7.6.2010, I directed the Tahsildar concerned to effect mutation of the properties in the name of the petitioner in the writ petition. Now this review petition is filed by the State contending that part of the properties did not belong to the defaulter for recovery of the amounts due from whom the DRT has conducted the sale and it is Government property allotted to the defaulter, which had not been transferred to the defaulter. Therefore, according to the State, the judgment requires to be reviewed and the matter requires to be heard afresh after affording an opportunity to the State to file counter affidavit. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in the writ petition also. 3. In view of the very serious contentions raised regarding r.p.880/10 2 the ownership of the property itself, I feel that the matter should be reheard after affording an opportunity to the State to file counter affidavit. Accordingly, this review petition is allowed, my judgment dated 7.6.2010 is recalled and the writ petition is restored to file. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge