IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2009 / 1ST SRAVANA 1931 RP.No. 641 of 2009(A) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.24998/2008 Dated 29/08/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS IN WPC ---------------------------------------- 1. THE SUB REGISTRAR, ALATHUR SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THARUR-II VILLAGE, ATHIPOTTA, VAVULLIAPURAM P.O., ALATHUR. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THARUR-II VILLAGE, ATHIPOTTA, VAVULLIAPURAM P.O., ALATHUR. 4. THE TALUK SURVEY OFFICER, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD. 5. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, NENMARA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.P.M.POULOSE RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER IN WPC -------------------------------- ABBAS K., S/O. KULARODIL KOYA, KURUKKAL, KULARODE HOUSE, VAVULLIAPURAM P.O., ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD. ADV.SAJAN VARGHESE. K. ADV.LIJU.M.P. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== R.P.No.641/2009 in W.P.(C).No.24998/2008 ================== Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2009 O R D E R The State is the petitioner in this review petition. They seek review of my judgment dated 29.8.2008 in W.P.(C).No.24998/2008. In that case, certain properties were directed to be restored to the petitioner, by Ext.P1 order of the Forest Tribunal. The petitioner in the writ petition wanted to sell the property to a prospective purchaser. The petitioner presented the sale deed for registration. The Sub Registrar, Alathur, refused to accept the same on the ground that, as per the revenue records, the property in question still stands in the name of the Government as forest land. Since, as on the date of submission of the sale deed for registration, the land was not a forest land, I held that the petitioner is entitled to have the revenue records corrected accordingly. Hence I directed that if the petitioner files an application for correction of the revenue records before the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent shall take appropriate action in the matter as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of the application. I also held that the petitioner would be free to re-present the sale deed for registration after correction of the revenue records, in which case, the 1st respondent shall take appropriate action in the matter in accordance R.P.641/09 2 with law, without any further delay. That is sought to be reviewed at the instance of the State. 2. The ground taken by the State is that subsequently, on verification, it was found that the land is an ecologically fragile land coming within the purview of The Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003. Therefore, the judgment has to be reviewed. 3. At the time of hearing of the writ petition, I had specifically asked the learned Special Government Pleader (Forest) as to whether the land had been included as an ecologically fragile land. The Special Government Pleader submitted that as on the date previous to the date of the judgment, it had not been so included and that verification in respect of the same is going on. Therefore, I only held that as on the date of the judgment it is not an ecologically fragile land and, therefore, it cannot be held that the land in question belongs to the Forest and passed the judgment accordingly. It is admitted by the Special Government Pleader that it is because of subsequent events that they came to the conclusion that the property became an ecologically fragile land. He also submits that in view of the provisions of the statute, the land would vest with the Government on the appointed date. I am of opinion that these are all not matters which can be considered in a review petition. In fact I did not even direct that R.P.641/09 3 the revenue records shall be mandatorily corrected. I only directed that if the petitioner files an application for correction of the revenue records before the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent shall take appropriate action in the matter as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of the application. The petitioner was directed to re-present the sale deed only after correction of the revenue records. Therefore, I do not find any grounds to review my judgment. Accordingly, this review petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge R.P.641/09 4