The Chairperson vs Fathima Beevi
2021 Latest Caselaw 630 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

    THURSDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 17TH POUSHA, 1942

                RP.No.854 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 9050/2019

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 9050/2019(E) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA


REVIEW PETITIONER:

               THE CHAIRPERSON, NILAMBUR MUNICIPALITY, NILAMBUR
               MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679329.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON
               SMT.KAVERY S THAMPI

RESPONDENTS:

      1        FATHIMA BEEVI
               AGED 56 YEARS
               D/O. ALAVIKUTTY, KANNATTIL HOUSE, VAISHNAV APARTMENT,
               FLAT NO.5A, VALIYAPARAMBU ROAD, KEERTHI NAGAR,
               ELAMAKARA, KOCHI , PIN - 682026.

      2        NILAMBUR MUNICIPALITY
               NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679329,
               REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

      3        THE SECRETARY
               NILAMBUR MUNICIPALITY, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
               PIN - 679329.

      4        THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER
               L.S.G.D SECTION, NILAMBUR MUNICIPALITY, NILAMBUR,
               MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679329.

      5        THE DIRECTOR,
               LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
               DEPARTMENT DIRECTORATE, SWARAJ BHAVAN, 1ST FLOOR,
               NANDANKODU, KAVADIYAR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
               695004.

      6        SHANAVAS P.Y
               AGED 44 YEARS
               S/O. YUSUF, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, VALLAPPUZHA,
               NILAMBUR AMSOM, NILAMBUR DESOM, NILAMBUR R.S.P.O,
               NILAMBUR - 679330, THACHAMATATHIL, KOLLICKAL,
               PIRAVOM P O, PIN - 686664.
 RP.No.854 OF 2020 IN WP(C).9050/2019

                               2


             R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
             R2-3 BY ADV. SHRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN


             SRI. ALEXANDER GEORGE - SC, SRI. MATHEW GEORGE
             VADAKKEL - SR.GP

     THIS  REVIEW   PETITION   HAVING  BEEN   FINALLY  HEARD   ON
07.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 RP.No.854 OF 2020 IN WP(C).9050/2019

                                        3

                                   ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking a review

of the judgment dated 25/09/2019 asserting that

the submissions made by the learned Standing

Counsel for the Municipality and recorded therein

are not correct.

I am afraid that I cannot accede to the

request afore made by the review petitioner,

because if a building permit has been granted to

the writ petitioner and the property in question

has been removed from the Asset Register of the

Municipality illegally, it is upto the parties to

challenge it appropriately and such liberty is

always available to them, since I have not dealt

with any of the said aspects on its merits in the

judgment in question.

I am, therefore, of the view that this review

petition is unnecessary and it is, therefore,

closed.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/7.1.2021 RP.No.854 OF 2020 IN WP(C).9050/2019

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF WP(C) NO. 23465 OF 2020 ALONG WITH EXHIBITS.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

NIL


MC

                     (TRUE COPY)                PA TO JUDGE