IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2008 / 2ND ASHADHA 1930 RP.No. 470 of 2008(U) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.10465/2007 Dated 28/02/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/ PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------- MUHAMMED ISMAIL, S/O.SIKHANDER RAWTHER, M.G.P.II/99, KARIMUTTY KARA, MARAYOOR VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------ 1. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, SANDAL WOOD DIVISION, MARAYOOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. FOREST RANGE OFFICER, MARAYOOR FOREST RANGE, MARAYOOR, DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== R.P.No. 470 OF 2008 IN W.P.(C) NO. 10465 OF 2007 U ==================== Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2008 O R D E R Review of this court's judgment in WP(C) No.10465/07 is sought for by the petitioner. 2. It was held in the judgment that in view of the contradictory reports that were available, it was not possible for this court to conclude on the title of the petitioner of the property from which the sandalwood in question was collected. It was therefore that this court closed the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to seek declaration of his title and other reliefs from an appropriate civil court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was initially claiming right over the sandal wood trees from two plots of land which include a portion which is still in his ownership and possession and a portion, which was transferred to the CSI Bishop, reserving right over the sandalwood trees. In this review petition, counsel submits that he is confining his claim only to the sandalwood trees available in the property in his possession. In order to prove title over the property, what is relied RP 470/08 in WPC 10465/07 : 2 : on is Annexure A1, title deed dated 15/5/1971 and it is contended that the title is that of the petitioner and his brothers. 4. I have gone through the document and it is seen that as per the recitals in the document the petitioner and his brothers have in their possession 5.974 hectares of land in the survey numbers mentioned therein. However, what I notice is that going by Exts. P1 and P2 reports submitted by the Village Officer and the Deputy Ranger, the extent of the property in the possession of the petitioner and his brothers is 4.25.30 hectares. That apart, the survey number mentioned in Exts. P1 and P2 also differ from the survey number mentioned in Annexure 1 relied on by the petitioner. If that be so, although there is some substance in what the petitioner contends that Annexure R2 (b) and (c) originally relied on against the petitioner are in relation to the land that is already assigned to the CSI Bishop, I am unable to conclude on the title of the petitioner relying entirely on Annexure 1. 5. I am not satisfied that there is any error apparent on the face of the judgment calling for review of the same. Review petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp