Kerala High Court
Saneesh Jose vs Daisy Chacko on 24 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 2ND ASWINA, 1943
RP NO. 638 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.03.2021 IN WP(C) 3847/2021
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
REVIEW PETITIONERS:
1 SANEESH JOSE,
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O. JOSE, PERUMBALLIKUNNEL, VAZHAKKULAM POST,
MUVATTUPUZHA.
2 BIJU VARGHESE,
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O. GEORGE, VELLAPPALLIL HOUSE, AVOLY POST,
MUVATTUPUZHA.
BY ADVS.
MATHEW JOHN (K)
ABY J AUGUSTINE
RESPONDENTS:
1 DAISY CHACKO,
POOVELIL HOUSE, NEELOOR, KADANAD VILLAGE,
KOTTAYAM-686651.
2 THE TAHSILDAR,
LAND RECORDS, TALUK OFFICE, MEENACHIL TALUK,
PALA P.O., KOTTAYAM-686651.
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KADANADU VILLAGE, KADANADU P.O., KOTTAYAM-
686651.
SRI P.BABU KUMAR - R1 ;
SMT MAYA M.N- GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R2 AND R3
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
RP No.638 OF 2021 2
ORDER
The review petitioners, third parties to W.P.(C)No.3847 of
2021, have filed this review petition invoking the provisions
under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking review of the judgment dated
26.03.2021 in W.P.(C)No.3847 of 2021, whereby that writ
petition filed by the 1st respondent herein was disposed of by
directing the 2nd respondent Tahasildar to finalise the
proceedings initiated for implementing Ext.P1 order dated
03.12.2020 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pala, after
obtaining report from the Taluk Surveyor, as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of that judgment. In the said
judgment, it was made clear that, in terms of the direction
contained therein, the 2nd respondent Tahasildar shall take an
appropriate decision in the matter, strictly in accordance with
law, taking note of the relevant statutory provisions and also
the law on the point.
2. In this review petition, it is pointed out that Ext.P1
order, which was sought to be implemented in W.P.(C)No.3847
of 2021, was under challenge in a statutory revision filed
before the District Collector, Kottayam, i.e., Ext.P5 revision in
W.P.(C)No.7653 of 2021. By Annexure-II judgment dated
24.03.2021, that writ petition was disposed of by directing the
District Collector, Kottayam, the 2 nd respondent therein, to
consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P5 revision, with
notice to the review petitioners and also the party respondents
therein, including the 1st respondent herein. During the
pendency of that revision, the 1st respondent herein filed W.P.
(C)No.3847 of 2021, seeking an order directing the 2 nd
respondent Tahasildar to finalise the proceedings to implement
Ext.P1 order dated 03.12.2020 of the Revenue Divisional
Officer, without the review petitioners, who are the affected
parties, in the party array.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the review
petitioners, the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent/writ
petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader for
respondents 2 and 3.
4. Having considered the pleadings and materials on
record and also the submissions made by the learned counsel
on both sides, this Court finds that, the 1 st respondent filed
W.P.(C)No.3847 of 2021 before this Court seeking finalisation
of the proceedings initiated by the 2 nd respondent Tahasildar to
implement Ext.P1 order dated 03.12.2020 of the Revenue
Divisional Officer, without the affected parties, i.e., the review
petitioner herein, in the party array. During the course of
arguments, the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent/writ
petitioner could not offer any explanation whatsoever, for filing
that writ petition, without the affected parties in the party
array.
5. The review petitioners, who have filed revision
petition against Ext.P1 order dated 03.10.2020 of the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Pala, are necessary parties in W.P.
(C)No.3847 of 2021 filed by the 1 st respondent/writ petitioner,
seeking finalisation of the proceedings to implement the said
order. As evidenced by Annexure-II judgment dated
24.03.2021 in W.P.(C)No.7653 of 2021, the review petitioners
have already filed Ext.P5 revision petition dated 19.01.2021
before the District Collector, Kottayam, against Ext.P1 order
dated 03.10.2020.
6. In the above circumstances, I deem it appropriate
to recall the judgment dated 26.03.2021 in W.P.(C)No.3847 of
2021. Accordingly, this review petition is allowed by recalling
the judgment dated 26.03.2021 in W.P.(C)No.3847 of 2021.
7. Registry to list W.P.(C)No.3847 of 2021 before
Bench, next week, as per roster.
8. The review petitioners shall file an application in
W.P.(C)No.3847 of 2021 to get themselves impleaded as
additional respondents.
Further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-III order dated
27.04.2021 of the 2nd respondent Tahasildar, which is one
issued in terms of the direction contained in the judgment
dated 26.03.2021 in W.P.(C)No.3847 of 2021, shall be
deferred for the time being, since the said judgment has been
recalled by allowing this review petition.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN
JUDGE
yd
APPENDIX
REVIEW PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:
Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
12.02.2020 IN WPC NO. 13339/2018 OF
THIS HONBLE COURT.
Annexure 11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
24.03.2021 IN WPC NO. 7653/2201 OF
THIS HONBLE COURT.
Annexure 111 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED
27.04.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS.
Annexure 1V TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
27.04.2021 ISEUD BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
TO THE PETITIONERS.
Annexure V TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
02.07.2021 ISSUED BY THE TALUK
SURVEYOR TO THE PETITIONER.
1ST RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:
Annexure R(1)(A) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER IN
I.A.NO.607/18 IN O.S.NO.100/2018 OF
MUNSIFF COURT PALA DATED 22.06.2018.
Annexure R(1)(B) TRUE PHOTOCPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.
(C)NO.14078/2021 DATED 15.07.2021.
Annexure R(1)(C) REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED
18.07.2017.
