Kunjan vs Cherian
2021 Latest Caselaw 7248 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

       TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                  RP.No.867 OF 2017 IN WP(C). 3030/2017

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.02.2017 IN WPC 3030/2017 OF HIGH COURT OF
                               KERALA


REVIEW PETITIONERS/3RD PERSON IN THE WRIT PETITION:

       1      KUNJAN,
              AGED 63 YEARS, S/O. CHOTHY, MORKKATTUMGAL HOUSE,
              KUTTA KARA, PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK,
              ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

       2      SHEELA,
              AGED 56 YEARS, W/O. THANKAPPAN, ITHITHADATHIL HOUSE,
              KUTTA KARA, PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK,
              ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

              BY ADV. SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 6 IN THE WRIT PETITION:

       1      CHERIAN
              AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. MATHAI, KUTTEYKUDIYIL HOUSE, KANINADU
              P.O, PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 682 308

       2      STATE OF KERALA
              REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
              REVENUE,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

       3      REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
              MINI CIVIL STATION,MUVATTUPUZHA 686 661

       4      TAHSILDAR
              KUNNATHUNAD TALUK, CIVIL STATION,
              PERUMBAVOOR,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 682 308

       5      TALUK SURVEYOR
              KUNNATHUNAD TALUK, CIVIL STATION,PERUMBAVOOR,
              ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 682 308

       6      DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
              ERNAKULAM RURAL,ERNAKULAM 682 005
 R.P. No. 867/2017                          :2:
in W.P.(C) No. 3030/2017

        7       STATION HOUSE OFFICER
                PUTHENCRUZ POLICE STATION, PUTHENCRUZ 682 308.




                R1- SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ
                R2 TO R7 - SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER

      THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.03.2021, THE
      COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 R.P. No. 867/2017                          :3:
in W.P.(C) No. 3030/2017



              Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2021.

                                 ORDER

This Review Petition is filed by third persons seeking to review

the judgment dated 16.02.2017 rendered by this Court in W.P.(C) No.

3030 of 2017. The writ petition was disposed of taking into account

the fact that a proceeding under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure was pending before the concerned Revenue Divisional

Officer and accordingly, directions were issued to issue notice to all

concerned and arrived at a logical conclusion in the pending

proceeding.

2. Now, the Review Petition is filed basically contending that the

directions issued by this Court to finalize the proceeding was without

hearing the review petitioners.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners,

the learned counsel for the party respondents and the learned Senior

Government Pleader Sri. Surin George Ipe, and perused the pleadings

and materials on record.

4. Even though various contentions are raised in the writ

petition, today, when the matter was taken up for consideration, the

learned counsel for the party respondents submitted that the

in W.P.(C) No. 3030/2017

proceeding pending before the Revenue Divisional Officer culminated in

a final order and therefore, nothing survives to be considered in this

Review Petition, especially when the Review Petitioners were also

heard by the Revenue Divisional Officer in that proceeding. He has

also submitted that being aggrieved by the order of the Revenue

Divisional Officer, a revision petition is preferred before the concerned

Sessions Court.

5. In that view of the matter and in view of the developments

that have taken place subsequent to the filing of the Review Petition, I

do not think anything survives to be considered in this Review Petition.

Accordingly, this Review Petition is dismissed, leaving open the

liberty of the Review Petitioners to take up all the contentions in any

pending proceeding.

sd/-

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

Rv