IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 18TH JULY 2011 / 27TH ASHADHA 1933 RP.No. 456 of 2011(P) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.11949/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER: 4TH RESPONDENT ------------------------------------ RAJAN M.I., AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.IYPE BABU, MULAMOOTIL HOUSE, NILAMBOOR P.O., CHUNGATHARA. BY ADV. MR. A.T.ANILKUMAR MS. V.SHYLAJA RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 & PETITIONER ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, NILAMBUR. 3. THE TALUK SURVEYOR, NILAMBUR. 4. PONNAMMA.M.I., W/O.JOHN SAMUEL, KOZHIKKAL HOUSE, EDAKKARA P.O., NEAR KALASAGAR,MALAPPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P. N. SANTHOSH THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ R.P. No. 456 of 2011 IN W.P (C) No . 11949 of 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 18th July , 2011 ORDER The review petitioner, who is the sister of the writ petitioner has approached this Court, seeking for a review of the judgment dated 12.04.2011 in W.P(C) No. 11949 of 2011, whereby the third respondent / Taluk Surveyor was directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext. P6 with regard to the grievance projected by the writ petitioner. 2. The learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that much of the material facts have been suppressed by the writ petitioner, including the pendency of a civil suit. It is also apprehended that direction given by this Court is likely to be misused so as to create evidence, which may affect the rights and liberties of the parties before the Civil Court 3. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that, the apprehension expressed from the part of the review petitioner is quite wrong and misconceived, as no merit adjudication has been done by this Court. The only direction was to have considered Ext. P6 by the third respondent and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. R.P. No. 456 of 2011 in W.P. (C) No. 11949 of 2011 : 2 : The review petition is disposed of, directing the 3rd respondent to pass appropriate orders on Ext. P6 as directed vide judgment 12.04.2011 giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned, if still pending. It is also made clear that, all issues are left open, to be agitated before the Civil Court, where the dispute is stated as pending. Sd/ P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd /True copy/ P.A. to Judge