IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2011 / 20TH POUSHA 1932 RP.No. 1141 of 2010() --------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.35161/2010) REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT NO.4: -------------------------------------------------------------------- SAFIA MOIDU KUNIYIL HOUSE, KALIYAR P.O.,VANNAPURAM VILLAGE IDUKKI DIST BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS NO.1-3 & PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURE OFFICER, VANNAPURAM-685584 2. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THODUPUZHA-685584 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, VANNAPURAM-685582 4. SR.PHILOMINA JOSEPH, MOTHER SUPERIOR ADORATIN CONVENT, KALIYAR POST, VANNAPURAM,IDUKKI DIST-685582 ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) FOR R4 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ R.P.No.1141 OF 2010 IN W.P.(C) NO. 35161 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 10th day of January, 2011 O R D E R The writ petition was filed praying for a direction for expeditious consideration of Ext.P4, an application dated 15/11/2010 filed by the petitioner before the 1st respondent seeking a joint verification of the property mentioned therein and to issue a certificate as to whether the land in question is suitable for paddy cultivation. By judgment dated 24th of November, 2010, at the admission stage itself, the case was disposed of directing consideration of the application. 2. The 4th respondent in the writ petition has now sought review of the judgment producing Annexure A order dated 21/12/2009 issued by the 1st respondent declining the certificate, as sought for by Ext.P4 application. It is contended that since similar request has already been considered and turned down by Annexure A order, there arise no necessity to direct consideration of Ext.P4. 3. On behalf of the 4th respondent/writ petitioner, counter R.P.No.1141/10 in WP(C) No.35161/2010 :2 : affidavit has been filed producing inter alia the application which led to Annexure A order as Ext.R4(f)and various other documents have also been produced to contend that the view taken in Annexure A is incorrect. Even if it is so, the correctness of Annexure A, in my view, does not arise for consideration in this review petition. If at all the 4th respondent/writ petitioner is aggrieved, the remedy available to the 4th respondent is to challenge Annexure A. 4. A reading of Annexure A shows that certificate as now sought for by the 4th respondent by Ext.P4 application has already been turned down. If Annexure A were produced in the writ petition, this Court would not have directed consideration of Ext.P4. Therefore, I am satisfied that the judgment is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of it, and therefore, the judgment dated 24th of November, 2010 directing consideration of Ext.P4 will stand recalled. Review petition is allowed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp