Sandeep Dileep vs Sree Venkitachalapathy Devaswom
2022 Latest Caselaw 3048 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
    THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1943
                        RP NO. 258 OF 2022
 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 22321/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF
                              KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5:

    1     SANDEEP DILEEP, S/O.DILEEP, SANDEEP VIHAR,
          NEAR SREE VENKITACHALAPATHY DEVASWAM TEMPLE,
          PALLURUTHY, KOCHI - 682 006.

    2     SREEKUMAR, S/O.MANI, RESIDING AT VRINDAVAN,
          NEAR SREE VENKITACHALAPATHY DEVASWAM TEMPLE,
          PALLURUTHY, KOCHI - 682 006.

          BY ADVS.T.MADHU
          SHAHID AZEEZ
          RENJISH S. MENON


RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:

    1     SRI VENKITACHALAPATHY DEVASWAM,
          PALLURUTHY, KOCHI - 682 006, REPRESENTED BY ITS
          PRESIDENT PURUSHOTHAMA RAO, S/O.MADHAVAN,
          PALLURUTHY P.O., KOCHI - 682 006.

    2     THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
          REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, FORT KOCHI - 682 001.

    3     THE TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS), CIVIL LINE ROAD,
          ECHAMUKU, CHEMBUMUKKU, KOCHI - 682 021.

    4     COCHIN CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
          CANNON SHED ROAD, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM - 682 011.

          BY ADV SHRI.K.JANARDHANA SHENOY, SC, KOCHI MUNICIPAL
          CORPORATION

          SMT.AMMINIKUTTY, SR.G.P
          SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ, SRI.K.JANARDHANA SHENOY

     THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION           ON
17.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 RP NO. 258 OF 2022
                                  -2-

                                ORDER

Even though this petition, seeking review of the

judgment of this Court dated 20.10.2021 in W.P.

(C)No.22321/2021, contains several averments,

effectively the Review Petitioners only require the

Writ Petitioner to maintain status quo with respect to

the property, pending the exercise as ordered therein.

2. Sri.T.Madhu - learned counsel for the Review

Petitioners, alleges that taking advantage of the

directions of this Court, the Writ Petitioner has now

constructed two steps in the property in question and

therefore, that unless they are injuncted from doing

so in future, his clients would be put into

irreparable prejudice.

3. In reply, Sri.R.Krishna Raj - learned counsel

for the Writ Petitioner, submitted that the

allegations of the Review Petitioners are completely

without basis and that no construction has been done

substantially changing the lie and nature of the RP NO. 258 OF 2022

property. He submitted that attempt of the Review

Petitioners is to take vehicles through the pathway

which has never been permitted and never been done in

the past. He added that, therefore, his client is

willing to maintain status quo with respect to the

property as on today, so that the exercise as ordered

by this Court can go on without any legal impediment.

4. I must say, after evaluating the afore rival

submissions, that it will be difficult for this Court

to affirmatively state whether the pathway in question

was motorable in the past or otherwise. In any event,

since this Court has already directed, through the

judgment in question, the Revenue Divisional Officer

(RDO) to complete proceedings as ordered therein, I am

certain that both sides should maintain status quo

with respect to the property in question as available

today.

I, therefore, close this Review Petition,

directing both sides to ensure that they do not alter

the lie or nature of the property in question and that RP NO. 258 OF 2022

nothing is conducted therein to alter its status as

available today, until the RDO issues orders in terms

of the judgment sought to be reviewed.

I also leave liberty to the Review Petitioners to

impel the contention - that the pathway in question

was motorable in the past - before the RDO, who will

then take the said contention also into account in

addition to the directions in the judgment sought to

be reviewed and record his opinion in the resultant

order, after causing necessary enquiry, as may be

requisite through the Authorities concerned.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE akv RP NO. 258 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF RP 258/2022

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22/1/2020 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.27351/2019 ON THE FILES OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

ANNEXURE A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 09/11/2020 IN WP(C) NO.18467/2020 ON THE FILES OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

ANNEXURE A3 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20/10/2021 IN WP(C) NO.22321/2021 ON THE FILES OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE