IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1930 RP.No. 1220 of 2008(E) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.30491/2008 Dated 20/10/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONERS --------------------------------- 1. MADATHIL THAZHA ABRAHAM, AYYAPPANKUNNU, ANGADIKKADAVU P.O., THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. MADATHIL THAZHA MATHAI, AYYAPPANKUNNU, ANGADIKKADAVU P.O., THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.C.JAMES SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN WPC --------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, LAND BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AYYANKUNNU, KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, KUTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR DIST. BY GP SMT.SUDAH DEVI THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- R.P.1220/2008 in W.P.(C).30491/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 17th day of November, 2008 ORDER Review petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging that though this Court has accepted the contention of the petitioner that the competent Land Tribunal is to take a decision on the petitioner's application claiming benefit under Section 7E of the Land Reforms Act, this Court has not specifically quashed Exts.P8 and P9. In so far as Ext.P8 is concerned, this Court has already made it clear that qua Ext.P7, the statutory provision cannot be kept in abeyance and the same would apply to Ext.P8 also. I have already referred to the fact that Ext.P9 was issued only pursuant to Ext.P4 judgment. Since by Ext.P5, Ext.P4 has been re-called, Ext.P9 as such does not have any efficacy. Said fact is further reiterated herein, if it is otherwise capable of generating any controversy. In the circumstances, I do not find any reason to review the judgment as such. R.P.1220/2008 2 Review petition is disposed of subject to the above clarification. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs