Lakshmi vs Lakshmi
2021 Latest Caselaw 8724 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

    TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1942

               RP.No.212 OF 2021 IN WP(C). 21420/2020

     JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 21420/2020(B) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA


REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO.5:

             LAKSHMI
             AGED 50 YEARS
             W/O. CHINNAKANNAN, VELLARKULAM, SHOLAYUR,
             PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678581.

             BY ADV. SRI.K.R.RAJKUMAR


RESPONDENTS/WRIT PETITIONERS/1 TO 4, 6 AND 7 RESPONDENTS:

      1      LALJI,
             AGED 63 YEARS, S/O. POYYARA GOPALAN, POYYARA HOUSE,
             AZHEEKODE P.O., KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT-
             680666.

      2      ISMAIL,
             AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. SULAIMAN, KALLUNGAL, AZHEEKODE
             P.O., KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680666.

      3      STATE OF KERALA,
             HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT ANNEX,
             TRIVANDRUM-695001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

      4      STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
             SHOLAYUR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
             PIN-678581.

      5      REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
             OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679101.

      6      VILLAGE OFFICER,
             VILLAGE OFFICE, SHOLAYUR VILLAGE, MANAKKADU TALUK,
             PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678581.

      7      KOPPAMMAL,
             AGED 50 YEARS, W/O. VELLANKARA, VELLARKULAM,
             SHOLAYUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678581.
 RP.No.212 OF 2021            2

      8      RAMANKUTTY,
             AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. CHINNAKANNA, VELLARULAM,
             SHOLAYUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678581.




             SMT MABLE C KURIAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION        ON
16.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 RP.No.212 OF 2021                   3


                                  ORDER

This review petition is filed seeking to review the judgment dated

24.11.2020 in W.P.(C) No.21420 of 2020 rendered by this Court.

2. The above writ petition was filed by the respondents in this

review petition raising a grievance that when the Village Officer, Sholayar

Village, attempted to measure out the property, obstructions were caused by

the party respondents in the writ petition. By the judgment under review, this

Court had directed that if any obstruction is caused while measurement is

carried out by the revenue authorities, the police shall ensure that no

hindrance is caused. Though notice was served on the party respondents,

they had not entered appearance.

3. The only ground stated in the review petition is that the review

petitioner was prevented from appearing before this Court. I find no reason

to review the judgment as there is no error apparent on the face of the

record. If the review petitioner is aggrieved by the measurements carried out

by the revenue authorities, she can very well challenge the same in a manner

known to law. I find no reason to entertain this review petition and the same

will stand dismissed.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

JUDGE DSV