IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2011 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1933 RP.No. 196 of 2011(E) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.25455/2004 Dated 03/04/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ADDL. RESPONDENT NO.7 ------------------------------------------- KALLUNGAL THOMAS, S/O. JOSEPH, H.NO.C.P.10/235, JOSEGIRI.P.O., CHERUPUZHA(VIA), KANNUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.JOHN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS 1 & 2 AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6 IN THE WP(C) ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THANKAM JACOB, W/O. DR. K.B.JACOB, 16/475, P.H.ROAD, THOPPUMPADY,COCHIN-682005. 2. THRESSIAMMA VARGHESE, W/O. VARGHESE, PUTHIYAKULANGARA, EDAVETTY.P.O., THODUPUZHA-685588. 3. KERALA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033. 4. TAHSILDAR, THALIPARAMBU TALUK, THALIPARAMBU,KANNUR DIST. PIN-670301. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PULINGOME VILLAGE, (FORMERLY PERINGHOM) THALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR-670301. 6. THE SUB REGISTRAR, PULINGOME, THALIPARAMBA, PIN-670141. 7. TALUK LAND BOARD, TALIPARAMBA, COLLECTORATE, KANNUR-670141. 8. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY(REVENUE) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. MR.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.R.S.KALKURA, SC FOR KFC MS.PINK H.THALIATH FOR R1 & R2 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------- R.P.No.196 of 2011 in W.P.(C.) No.25455 of 2004 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 26th day of May, 2011 O R D E R This belated review petition is filed by a person who is stated to be in possession of the land referred to in the judgment in the Writ Petition under review. All what this Court has held is that the property that originally belonged to the 2nd petitioner in the WP(C) should be conveyed to her daughter, the 1st petitioner in the WP(C), by the KFC because the 1st petitioner settled the loan arrears to the satisfaction of the creditor Institution. The review petitioner's case is that he along with others are in possession of some of the properties covered by the documents executed by the KFC pursuant to the judgment in favour of the 1st petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the review petitioner is only an encroacher and that he is not entitled to any right over the land. I do not think there is any R.P.No.196/2011 in WP(C) No.25455/04 -2- scope for considering the right, if any, of the review petitioner, which was not considered or decided in the WP(C). Therefore, in my view, the judgment cannot be reviewed at the request of the review petitioner, whose case i.e. regarding right over the property is not dealt with in the judgment. Therefore, it is up to the review petitioner to establish rights if any he has elsewhere. However, I clarify that right, if any, of the review petitioner whether as an encroacher or as a person in possession is not dealt with or decided in the judgment, and any authority or court competent to decide the matter is free to decide the matter. The freedom given in the judgment to the 1st petitioner in the WP(C) to initiate steps for eviction of encroachers through process of law itself means that the eviction should be carried out only in accordance with law, i.e. by taking into account the objection or rights of the encroachers. This Review Petition is disposed of as above. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) jg