Dr. Purushothama Bharathi @ K.M ... vs The Tahsildar, Meenachil Taluk
2021 Latest Caselaw 22901 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
   TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1943
                           RP NO. 777 OF 2021
 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 28426/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF
                                 KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

          DR. PURUSHOTHAMA BHARATHI @ K.M GEORGE,
          AGED 71 YEARS
          S/O.MATHEW M KUZHIVELI,7E,CORDIAL
          CORONA,NANTHANCODE,KAVADIYAR.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
          DISTRICT,PIN-695003.

          BY ADVS.
          K.N.ABHILASH
          SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT
          M.A.AHAMMAD SAHEER
          P.B.MUHAMMED AJEESH
          RITHIK S.ANAND



RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE TAHSILDAR, MEENACHIL TALUK,
          KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 686 575.

    2     THE TALUK SURVEYOR,
          MEENACHIL TALUK,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686578.

    3     VILLAGE OFFICER,
          LALAM VILLAGE,MEENACHIL TALUK,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,PIN-
          686578.

    4     INSABELLA FELIX,
          W/O FELIX GEORGE,MANIYANGATTU HOUSE, MANALUNGAL.P.O,
          ANIKKADU NORTH KARA, AKALAKKUNNAM VILLAGE,KOTTAYAM
          DISTRICT, PIN-686578.

    5     LILLI DEVIS,
          JNAVALIL HOUSE,VILANGUPARA,MARTHOMA CHURCH
          ROAD,OPP.KSRTC DEPOT,PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,PIN-
          686578.
 RP NO. 777 OF 2021
                                    2

    6       PASTOR,
            PENTHAKOSTHU MISSION,

            MARTHOMA CHURCH ROAD,OPP.KSRTC DEPOT, PALA,KOTTAYAM
            DISTRICT,PIN-686578.

            BY ADV JOSEPH SEBASTIAN PURAYIDAM
            SMT. SURYA BINOY- SR. G.P




     THIS   REVIEW   PETITION   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
23.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 RP NO. 777 OF 2021
                                         3



                                O R D E R

The petitioner in this review petition

seeks that judgment of this Court, dated

09.09.2021, be modified to the extent to which

it directs respondents 1 and 2 to take up

Exts.P3 and P4 applications of the petitioner

and to dispose of the same, but only after

measuring the entire property covered by

Ext.P1. The petitioner say that unless the

entire property is measured and demarcated, no

purpose will be served by the exercise as

ordered by this Court.

2. Sri.Joseph Sebastian Purayidam -

learned counsel appearing for the writ

petitioner, submitted that though he does not

stand in the way of the afore request made by

the review petitioner, he leaves to this Court

to take a final decision on the said issue. RP NO. 777 OF 2021

3. However, Sri.Mathew John - learned

counsel appearing for the 5th respondent (shown

incorrectly as the 6th writ respondent in the

writ petition), submitted that the afore

request of the review petitioner is untenable

because the measurement of the entire property

covered by Ext.P1 is unnecessary; and in any

event, without purpose.

4. When I consider the afore submissions,

it is without doubt that this Court has only

directed respondents 1 and 2 to take up Exts.P3

and P4 applications and dispose of the same in

terms of law. This can only mean that they are

obligated to do so as per the requirements and

parameters of law, following the statutory

provisions; and if the review petitioner

requests them to undertake the exercise as has

been sought for in this review petition, then

same will have to be considered by them and

either acceded to or rejected for valid RP NO. 777 OF 2021

reasons.

In such perspective, I do not think it will

be necessary for this Court to dictate the

manner in which the representations are to be

decided by respondents 1 and 2; and

consequently, close this review petition,

without disturbing any of the findings or

directions in the judgment sought to be

reviewed.

Needless to say, notwithstanding the afore,

if the review petitioner or any other person

seek reliefs before respondents 1 and 2 within

the purlieus of the directions of this Court,

same will certainly be considered and taken

note of appropriately in the resultant order.

Additionally, since this Court now

understands that rank of the respondent, who is

represented by Sri.Mathew John, was shown

incorrectly in the writ petition, I deem it

appropriately to suo motu clarify that RP NO. 777 OF 2021

Sri.Mathew John has been consistently appearing

for the 5th respondent in the writ petition.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE SAS/23/11/2021