Kerala High Court
E.V. Joseph vs The District Collector on 3 September, 2024
Author: Murali Purushothaman
Bench: Murali Purushothaman
2024:KER:66600
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 12TH BHADRA, 1946
RP NO. 294 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.30974 OF
2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS:
1 E.V. JOSEPH
AGED 91 YEARS
ENCHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, THEKKUMBHAGOM,
TRIPUNITHURA, ERANKULAM - 682301.
2 BABU THOMAS
AGED 54 YEARS
ENCHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOODALLOOR P.O.,
KIDANGUR VILLAGE., PIN - 686587.
BY ADV JOHN K.GEORGE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM - 686002.
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM - 686002.
3 THE TAHSILDAR (LR)
TALUK OFFICE, KOTTAYAM - 686001.
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
ETTUMANOOR VILLAGE,
ETTUMANOOR P.O - 686131.
5 GEORGEKUTTY
AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. VARKEY,
R.P.No.294 of 2024 in
W.P.(C)No.30974 of 2019 2024:KER:66600
:2:
KUNNAMPILLI, PPADINJAREKKARA P.O.,
UDAYANAPURAM VILLAGE, VAIKOM,
ERNAKULAM - 686631.
6 K.V.JOSE
AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. VARKEY,
KUNNAMPILLI, PPADINJAREKKARA P.O.,
UDAYANAPURAM VILLAGE, VAIKOM,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686631.
7 MERCYKUTTY,
AGED 54 YEARS, D/O.VARKEY,
KUNNAMPILLI, PPADINJAREKKARA P.O.,
UDAYANAPURAM VILLAGE, VAIKOM,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 686631.
8 SHAJU K. VARKEY,
AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. VARKEY,
KUNNAMPILLI, PPADINJAREKKARA P.O.,
UDAYANAPURAM VILLAGE, VAIKOM,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 686631.
9 SUNNY K.VARKEY,
AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. VARKEY,
KUNNAMPILLI, PPADINJAREKKARA P.O.,
UDAYANAPURAM VILLAGE, VAIKOM,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 686631.
10 JIJIMON K.V.,
AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. VARKEY,
KUNNAMPILLI, PPADINJAREKKARA P.O.,
UDAYANAPURAM VILLAGE, VAIKOM,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,., PIN - 686631.
BY ADVS.
LIJI J VADAKKEDOM
MARY BEENA JOSPEH, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 03.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
R.P.No.294 of 2024 in
W.P.(C)No.30974 of 2019 2024:KER:66600
:3:
ORDER
Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2024
This review petition is filed against the judgment dated
27.11.2023 in W.P.(C) No.30974 of 2019. The writ petition
was filed for quashing Ext.P8 order passed by the 3 rd
respondent-Tahsildar on the ground that the same has been
passed in collusion with the 6th respondent and without
hearing the petitioners.
2. Vide the impugned judgment, this Court set aside
Ext.P8 and directed the 3rd respondent to consider the
application of the 6th respondent for cancellation of mutation
after hearing the petitioners, the 6 th respondent and all
affected / interested parties in accordance with law, as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one
R.P.No.294 of 2024 in
W.P.(C)No.30974 of 2019 2024:KER:66600
month from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment.
3. The review petitioners contend that the
application for cancellation of mutation which is referred to
as Ext.P7 in the writ petition is not maintainable before the
3rd respondent, Tahsildar, in view of the provisions contained
in Rule 18 of the Transfer of Registry Rules and that it is
barred by limitation. Sri.John K George, the learned Counsel
for the petitioners submits that there is an error apparent on
the face of the records inasmuch as this Court has not
considered the maintainability of Ext.P7 before the 3 rd
respondent as well as the question of limitation.
4. Sri.Liji J. Vadakedom, the learned Counsel for the
6th respondent would submit that there is no question of
limitation in view of Rule 17 of the Transfer of Registry Rules
and that Ext.P8 order has been passed in violation of the
principles of natural justice. It is further contended that
Ext.P7 has been preferred in the light of the judgment in
R.P.No.294 of 2024 in
W.P.(C)No.30974 of 2019 2024:KER:66600
O.S.No.172 of 2016 of the Munsiff's Court, Ettumanoor and
therefore, there is no error apparent on the face of the
records to review the judgment.
5. It is true that the question as regards the
maintainability of Ext.P7 as well as the question of limitation
was not considered by this Court while passing the
judgment which is sought to be reviewed. Accordingly,
I deem it proper to recall the impugned judgment.
6. Accordingly, the judgment dated 27.11.2023 in
W.P.(C) No.30974 of 2019 is recalled and the writ petition is
restored to files for fresh consideration.
Registry may post the matter as per Roster without
delay.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
JUDGE
ams
R.P.No.294 of 2024 in
W.P.(C)No.30974 of 2019 2024:KER:66600
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
Annexure R6(a) A COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED
22.1.2024 IN O.S. NO. 80/2020 BEFORE
THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM
