Hajirommabi Thottathapura ... vs Pokkillakam Saromabi
2021 Latest Caselaw 20853 Ker

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
  WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 14TH ASWINA, 1943
                      RP NO. 546 OF 2021
  AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 19329/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF
              KERALA, ERNAKULAM DATED 1.10.2020
                       ----------------
REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 4 TO 6 :-

    1     HAJIROMMABI THOTTATHAPURA (HALIMAPURA),
          AGED 58 YEARS, W/O.LATE ABBAS KARUPPATHAPURA,
          HALIMAPURA HOUSE, KALPENI ISLAND,
          UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP - 682 557.

    2     POKKILAKAM SALEEM, AGED 34 YEARS
          S/O.LATE POKKILAKAM JUMAILABI,
          POKKILAKAM HOUSE, KALPENI ISLAND,
          UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP - 682 557.

    3     POKKILAKAM SAYED SHEIKH KOYA HAJI, AGED 74 YEARS
          S/O.LATE MALMIKKAKADA ATTAKOYA,
          POKKILAKAM HOUSE, KALPENI ISLAND,
          UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP - 682 557.

          BY ADVS.
          V.B.HARI NARAYANAN
          RUBY P.PAULOSE
          SALIHA BEEVI P.A
          GAYATHRY.J


RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS :-

    1     POKKILAKAM SAROMMABI, AGED 71 YEARS
          D/O.LATE POKKILAKAM CHERIABI,
          POKKILAKAM HOUSE, KALPENI ISLAND,
          UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP - 682 557,
          REP. BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, ABDUL LATEEF,
          AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.LATE MALMIKKAKADA MUTHUKOYA,
          CHERIYANALLAL HOUSE, KALPENI ISLAND,
          UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP - 682 557.

    2     THE UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP
          REPRESENTED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR, KAVARATTI ISLAND,
          UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP - 682 555.

    3     THE ADMINISTRATOR,
          ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNION TERRITORY OF
 RP NO.546 OF 2021

                             -: 2 :-

           LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI ISLAND,
           UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP-682 555.

     4     THE SUB REGISTRAR CUM SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
           OFFICE OF THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
           KALPENI ISLAND,
           UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP-682 557.

           BY ADVS.
           SRI.G.P.SHINOD
           SRI.MANU.S, SCGC, ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNION
           TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP
           SRI.AJIT G ANJARLEKAR


     THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 RP NO.546 OF 2021

                               -: 3 :-


                            ORDER

Dated this the 6th day of October, 2021

This review petition is filed seeking review of the judgment

directing the consideration of Ext.P14 representation submitted by

the writ petitioner.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners,

the learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as the learned

counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the review

petitioners that the sale deed against which Ext.P14 representation

had been preferred was one executed on 2.6.1998. It is stated that

Ext.P14 representation had admittedly been filed by the petitioner

in the writ petition only on 12.3.2020. It is, therefore, submitted

that the disposal of the writ petition on 1.10.2020 directing the

consideration of Ext.P14, which was hopelessly time barred, was

not warranted.

4. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that

the provisions of the enabling enactment specifically states that a

transfer to a non-Scheduled Tribe member would be void in law

and that therefore, the question of limitation is not relevant in the

facts of the case. The learned counsel appearing for the 3 rd

respondent would also submit that all aspects of the matter, RP NO.546 OF 2021

including the maintainability of an application in the nature of

Ext.P14, would be considered by the 3 rd respondent and the issue

of limitation would be considered as a preliminary issue.

5. Having heard the learned counsel on all sides, I notice

that the direction in the judgment was only for a consideration of

Ext.P14 representation preferred by the petitioner in the writ

petition, with notice to all concerned. The review petitioners have

a right to be put on notice in the proceedings by the 2 nd respondent

and they have a right to raise all contentions including the

contention with regard to maintainability and limitation before the

2nd respondent in accordance with law.

In the above view of the matter and in the nature of the

directions issued, I am of the opinion that review of the judgment is

not called for. The review petition is, therefore, closed with a

direction that the respondents shall put the review petitioners also

on notice and shall consider all relevant aspects before passing

orders as directed in the judgment under review.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

Jvt/7.10.2021