IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2010 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1932 RP.No. 568 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WA.348/2008 Dated 15/02/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER: PETITIONER/R4 ----------------------------------- M.V.SREYAMS KUMAR M.L.A., AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. SRI. M.P.VEERENDRAKUMAR, KRISHNAGIRI ESTATE, KALPETTA NORTH P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SMT.SMITHA RESPONDENTS: APPELLANTS & RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------- 1. NATIONAL ADIVASI FEDERATION, (REG.NO.ER 354/03), VENKATT CHIRAKKAL, PALLURUTHY P.O., KOCHI-6, REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT P.BHASKARAN, AGED 77, S/O. KADUTHA, PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE, KAIPPILLY P.O., POONJAR SOUTH, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. V.N.BALAN, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, VAZHAKANDI HOUSE, THORANI MALA, SULTHAN BATHERY VIA, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD CIVIL STATION, COLLECTORATE, KALPETTA, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. R3 TO 5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI. A.A. GANESH SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA FOR R1 & 2 SRI.K.I.SAGEER FOR R1 & 2 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.No. 568 of 2009 in W.A.No. 348 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of April, 2010 O R D E R Joseph, J. By the impugned judgment, inter alia, this Court taking note of the facts has directed as under: “ At this stage, the only order that we can pass is to direct respondents 1 to 3 to take effective steps to re-possess the land from the 4th respondent, if he is in illegal possession and to distribute the same to the Adivasi people at the earliest.” 2. We heard the learned senior counsel for the review petitioner, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and also the R.P.No. 568 of 2009 2 learned Government Pleader. Learned senior counsel for the review petitioner points out that without issuing notice to the review petitioner the impugned judgment came to be passed. He would further point out that on the basis of the contents of paragraph 7, which we have extracted, action has been taken against the review petitioner and he is aggrieved. We feel that there is merit in the contention of the learned senior counsel and the judgment should be reviewed. We accordingly review the judgment. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm