IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2009 / 13TH MAGHA 1930 RP.No. 971 of 2007() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.1031/2004 Dated 18/07/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONERS ----------------------------------------------------- 1. P.M.ABDUL NAZIR, S/O.KUNHABDULLA, KUTTIAI AMSOM, THONDIPOYIL DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. KUNNOTH FIRDOUSE, S/O.MOIDU HAJEE, VILLIALI AMSOM, THIRUMANA DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. RAMATH THAZHA KUNIYIL NABEESA, D/O.KUNHALIKUTTY, VILLAPPALLI AMSOM, THIRUMANA DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE SUB REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), KOZHIKODE. 4. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, PUBLIC OFFICE, BUILDING, MUSEUM JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1-R5 SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------------- R.P.No.971 of 2007 in W.P.(C) No.1031/2004 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 2nd February, 2009. O R D E R The review petition is at the instance of the writ petitioners. The writ petition was filed challenging Exts.P3, P5 and P7. The dispute pertains to the stamp duty payable on a document. It is the contention of the writ petitioners that the document was in the form of re-conveyance which was originally mortgaged and hence Article 47(b) of the Schedule to the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 alone is attracted, in view of Article 55(c) of the Schedule to the Act. The Revenue took the view that it is not a transfer of interest secured by a mortgage deed and hence Section 25 read with Article 48(b) is applicable. The writ petition was disposed of in the light of the stand taken in the counter affidavit. The contention as to the application of Article 47(b) read with Section 55(c) was not considered. Apparently the same was not brought to the notice of this court at the time of disposal of the writ petition. Be that as it may, since one of the basic issues raised in the writ petition being what is referred to above, it is only in the interests of justice that the writ petition is heard RP NO.971/07 2 afresh on all points. Therefore, the review petition is allowed and the judgment in W.P.(C) No.1031/2004 is recalled. Post the writ petition for hearing. KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE. tgs KURIAN JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------------- R.P.No.971 of 2007 in W.P.(C) No.1031/2004 ---------------------------------------------- O R D E R Dated 2nd February, 2009.