IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2009 / 7TH SRAVANA 1931 RP.No. 240 of 2009(B) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.227/1999 Dated 08/10/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(/NON-PARTY: -------------------------------------- ANANDAVALLY, W/O.SUKUMARAN NAIR, PUTHVAL PUTHEN VEEDU, ARASUPARAMBU, NEDUMANGADU. BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER & RESPONDETS 1 TO 7: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. C.REJENDRAN, S/O.CHELAPPAN, SHEEBA HOUSE, ARASHUPARAMBUY, NEDUMANGADU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE TAHSIDLAR, NEDUMANGADU TALUK, NEDUMANGADU.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE NEDUMANGADU MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NEDUMANGADU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. SMT.NAFEESA UMMAL, CHAIRPERSON, NEDUMANGADU MUNICIPALITY, NEDUMANGADU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. THE PARENT-TEACHER ASSOCIATION, GOVT.L.P.SCHOOL CHELLAMKODE REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI.VIJAYAMOHANAN NAIR, JANATHA HOUSE, NEDUMANGADU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 8. THE HEADMISTRESS, GOVT.L.P.SCHOOL. CHELLAMKODE, ARASHUPARAMBU, NEDUMANGADU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R2 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.V.MANU. R5 BY ADV.SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- R.P.No.240 OF 2009 IN O.P.227 OF 1999 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of July, 2009 O R D E R 1.This review petition is by a stranger to the writ petition. 2.The writ petition was filed seeking a direction in relation to the preservation of an item of Government property on which a government school stands. The construction of a compound wall stood held up from 1999 under interim orders. Therefore, in 2007, that writ petition was ordered directing that any complaint regarding likelihood of encroachment into government property has to be taken care of by the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram and the Deputy Director of Education since the institution being a school. The Municipality was required to ensure that no permission for construction of any wall or any structure is issued against the interest of the government property in question. The Tahsildar was directed to ensure that the government land is properly preserved. RP.240/09 Page numbers 3.The review petition is filed on the allegation that the Tahsildar had closed off a way that the review petitioner had at one end of the Government land. It appears that the said allegation is true. However, this Court does not give its seal of approval to the assertion of the review petitioner that she has easement over that parcel in terms of law. I say this in the context of the fact that there is a civil suit pending at the instance of certain others and the review petitioner can very well get relief against the Government authorities also from the civil court. Therefore, if any way has been forcefully closed off following the judgment sought to be reviewed, the Tahsildar will do the needful to provide the petitioner egress and ingress without in any manner conceding the review petitioner's right, if any, for easement. If the review petitioner does not obtain favourable orders from the civil court, within a reasonable time, the Tahsildar will ensure that the said pathway is also closed. It is also clarified that any civil court deciding on the issues will ensure that the judgment sought to be reviewed as well as this RP.240/09 Page numbers order, in no manner, affects the decision making process by the civil court since this order and the judgment sought to be reviewed do not speak anything on the merits of the matter. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.31/7.