IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2011 / 6TH ASHADHA 1933 RP.No. 439 of 2011(D) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.1640/2011 Dated 18/01/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/3RD PARTY: -------------------------------------------------- MOHANDAS RADHAKRISHNAN S/O.MADHAVAN NAIR, KARUTHODI HOUSE, MANJERI REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER K.V.GOPINATH S/O.THANKAM AMMA, KIZHAKKEVELLATU HOUSE, NARUKARA, ERANADU TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ALEEMA KUNHIBEEVI AGED 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT 5/3008 THIRUTHIYAD, AZHAKODY TEMPLE MAVOOR ROAD, PUTHIYATHARA, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER NARUKARA VILLAGE, NARUKKARA PO, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR ERNAD TALUK, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR MALAPPURAM COLLECTORATE, MALAPPURAM. 5. TALUK LAND BOARD ERNAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN COLLECTORATE,MALAPPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SMT.M.J.RAJASREE THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RP NO.439/11 APPENDIX REVIEW PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ANNEXURE 1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER MADE IN CRP NO.1143/2003 DT 2.1.2008. ANNEXURE II: TRUE COPY OF THE FAMILY HERIDITARY CHART. ANNEXURE III: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.2/2002 DT 23.12.2008. ANNEXURE IV: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT MADE IN WPC NO.1640/2011 DT 8/1/2011. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ R.P.No.439 OF 2011 IN W.P.(C) NO. 1640 OF 2011 (D) ===================== Dated this the 27th day of June, 2011 O R D E R By the judgment dated 18/01/2011, the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent was disposed of directing that, on the production of a copy of this judgment, 1st respondent therein will examine the matter as directed therein. Review petitioner who was not a party to the judgment submits that based on Ext.P3, tax is going to be accepted by the Village Officer. 2. The judgment only directed consideration of the matter as directed therein. That apart, fact remains that even as at present, Ext.P3 remains unchallenged. In such circumstances, I do not find any merit in this review petition. Review petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp