Kerala High Court
Vasanthi Soman vs State Of Kerala on 17 June, 2025
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
1
R.P. Nos.521 and 526 of 2025 2025:KER:42613
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1947
RP NO. 521 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.03.2025 IN WP(C)NO.41348 OF
2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS:
1 CHELLAPPAN THANKAPPAN,AGED 54 YEARS
S/O THANKAPPAN, VENKAYAPPARA TRIBAL SETTLEMENT,
KALLAR, VATTAYAR.P.O., IDUKKI., PIN - 686565
2 THANKAPPAN RAMASWAMY,AGED 63 YEARS
SO ROAMASWAMY, VENKAYAPPARA TRIBAL SETTLEMENT, KALLAR
VATTAYAR.P.O., IDUKKI (DIED), PIN - 685565
3 SARASU MANI, AGED 63 YEARS
W/O MANI, VENKAYAPPARA TRIBAL SETTLEMENT, KALLAR,
VATTAYAR.P.O., IDUKKI., PIN - 685565
4 SIVAKAMI MANISAMI, AGED 54 YEARS
W/O MANISAMI, VENKAYAPPARA TRIBAL SETTLEMENT, KALLAR,
VATTAYAR.P.O., IDUKKI., PIN - 685565
5 PONNAMMA, AGED 63 YEARS, W/O LATE THANKAPPAN
RAMASWAMI, VENKAYAPPARA TRIBAL SETTLEMENT, KALLAR,
VATTAYAR.P.O., IDUKKI., PIN - 685565
6 BINU, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O LATE THANKAPPAN RAMASWAMI,
VENKAYAPPARA TRIBAL SETTLEMENT, KALLAR, VATTAYAR.P.O.,
IDUKKI., PIN - 685565
BY ADVS.
SHRI.A.V.JOJO
SRI.A.X.VARGHESE
2
R.P. Nos.521 and 526 of 2025 2025:KER:42613
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF SCHEDULED CASTE/SCHEDULED TRIBE
DEVELOPMENT SECRETARIAT, NANDAVANAM, VIKAS
BHAVAN.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695033
3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
IDUKKI., PIN - 685603
4 THE SUB COLLECTOR
DEVIKULAM, IDUKKI., PIN - 685613
5 THE TAHSILDAR (LA)
DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI., PIN - 685613
SRI.M.H HANILKUMAR, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS REVIEW PETITION WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 11.06.2025 ALONG
WITH RP No.526 of 2025, THE COURT ON 17.6.2025 PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
3
R.P. Nos.521 and 526 of 2025 2025:KER:42613
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1947
RP NO. 526 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.03.2025 IN WP(C) NO.12982 OF
2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS 2 TO 8 IN WPC:
1 VASANTHI SOMAN, AGED 43 YEARS
W/O SOMAN, VENKAYAPPARA TRIBAL SETTLEMENT, KALLAR,
VATTAYAR.P.O., IDUKKI., PIN - 685565
2 SANTHA SUBHAYYAN,AGED 50 YEARS
D/O SUBHAYYAN, VENKAYAPPARA TRIBAL SETTLEMENT, KALLAR,
VATTAYAR.P.O., IDUKKI., PIN - 685565
3 BINDHU SUBHAYYAN,AGED 50 YEARS
W/O SURESH, VENKAYAPPARA TRIBAL SETTLEMENT, KALLAR,
VATTAYAR.P.O., IDUKKI., PIN - 685565
4 THANKAMMA VIJAYACHANDRAN,AGED 54 YEARS
W/O VIJAYACHANDRAN, VENKAYAPPARA TRIBAL SETTLEMENT,
KALLAR, VATTAYAR.P.O., IDUKKI., PIN - 685565
5 SHOBHA,AGED 64 YEARS
W/O LATE THEVAN THANKACHAN, VENKAYAPPARA TRIBAL
SETTLEMENT, KALLAR, VATTAYAR.P.O., IDUKKI., PIN -
685565
6 KAVERI,AGED 41 YEARS
D/O LATE THEVAN THANKACHAN, VENKAYAPPARA TRIBAL
SETTLEMENT, KALLAR, VATTAYAR.P.O., IDUKKI., PIN -
685565
4
R.P. Nos.521 and 526 of 2025 2025:KER:42613
7 SREEJA,AGED 45 YEARS
D/O LATE THEVAN THANKACHAN, VENKAYAPPARA TRIBAL
SETTLEMENT, KALLAR, VATTAYAR.P.O., IDUKKI., PIN -
685565
BY ADVS.
SHRI.A.V.JOJO
SRI.A.X.VARGHESE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, REVENUE
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN -
695001
2 THE SECRETARY , DEPARTMENT OF SCHEDULED
CASTE/SCHEDULED TRIBE DEVELOPMENT SECRETARIAT,
NANDAVANAM, VIKAS BHAVAN.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.,
PIN - 695033
3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
IDUKKI, PIN - 685603
4 THE SUB COLLECTOR
DEVIKULAM, IDUKKI., PIN - 685613
5 THE TAHSILDAR (LA)
DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI., PIN - 685613
6 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001
SRI.M.H HANILKUMAR, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS REVIEW PETITION WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 11.06.2025, THE
COURT ON 17.6.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
5
R.P. Nos.521 and 526 of 2025 2025:KER:42613
COMMON ORDER
Muralee Krishna, J.
These review petitions are filed under Order XLVII Rule 1
read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the
respective petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 41348 of 2023 and
W.P.(C)No.12982 of 2022, seeking review of the common
judgment dated 03.03.2025 passed by this Court, whereby the
writ petitions were dismissed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that
as per Rule 21(9) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 ('the
Rules 1964' in short), the Government may, at any time, revise,
cancel or alter the decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer.
There is failure on the part of the 1st respondent to discharge this
statutory obligation when the petitioners filed the revision
petitions against the order of the 4th respondent, Sub Collector,
Devikulam, rejecting the statutory appeal preferred by the
petitioners against the proceedings of the 5th respondent,
Tahsildar, Devikulam. This Court failed to consider this aspect
R.P. Nos.521 and 526 of 2025 2025:KER:42613
while passing the judgment under review.
4. On the other hand, the learned Special Government
Pleader would submit that as per the judgment in Karimtharuvi
Tea Estates Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1999 (1) KLT 33] this
Court held Rule 21(9) of the Rules, 1964, as void and
unenforceable as it goes beyond the Rule making power contained
in Section 7(1) of the Kerala Government Land Assignment Act,
1960 ('the Act 1960', for short). Moreover, this Court passed a
considered judgment wherein the entitlement of the petitioners
for assignment of land under the provisions of the Act, 1960, was
considered on merits, and hence, there is no circumstance to
review the said judgment.
5. To understand the circumstances that entitle the Court
to exercise its power of review, it would be appropriate to go
through the provisions concerned as well as the law on the point
laid down by the judgments of the Apex Court as well as this Court.
Section 114 and Order XLVII of CPC are the relevant provisions as
far as the review of a judgment or order of a Court is concerned.
6. Section 114 of the CPC reads thus:
R.P. Nos.521 and 526 of 2025 2025:KER:42613
"114. Review-
Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself
aggrieved-
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by
this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by
this Code, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small
Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court
which passed the decree or made the order, and the Court
may make such order thereon as it thinks fit."
7. Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC reads thus:
"1. Application for review of judgment.
(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved-
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed,
but from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed,
or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small
Causes,
and who, from the discovery of new and important matter
or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was
not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him
at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or
on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face
of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to
obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against
him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which
R.P. Nos.521 and 526 of 2025 2025:KER:42613
passed the decree or made the order.
(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may
apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the
pendency of an appeal by some other party except where
the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and
the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to
the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the
review.
Explanation-
The fact that the decision on a question of law on which
the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or
modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in
any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such
judgment."
8. It is trite that the power of review under Section 114 read
with Order XLVII of the CPC is available to be exercised only on
setting up any one of the following grounds by the petitioner.
(i) discovery of a new and important matter or evidence, or
(ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or
(iii) any other sufficient reason.
9. In Northern India Caterers v. Lt. Governor of Delhi
[(1980) 2 SCC 167], the Apex Court held that under the guise of
review, a litigant cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the
questions, which have already been addressed and decided.
R.P. Nos.521 and 526 of 2025 2025:KER:42613
10. The Apex Court in Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi
[(1997) 8 SCC 715] held thus:
"Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to
review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent
on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident
and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly
be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record
justifying the court to exercise its power of review under
Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under
Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous
decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it
must be remembered, has a limited purpose and cannot be
allowed to be "an appeal in disguise".
(Underline supplied)
11. In N.Anantha Reddy v. Anshu Kathuria [(2013) 15
SCC 534] the Apex Court held that the mistake apparent on
record means that the mistake is self-evident, needs no search,
and stares at its face. Surely, review jurisdiction is not an appeal
in disguise. The review does not permit rehearing of the matter
on merits.
12. In Sasi (D) through LRs v. Aravindakshan Nair
and others [AIR 2017 SC 1432] the Apex Court held that in
order to exercise the power of review, the error has to be self-
R.P. Nos.521 and 526 of 2025 2025:KER:42613
evident and is not to be found out by a process of reasoning.
13. In Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. v. Assam State
Electricity Board and others [(2020) 2 SCC 677] the Apex
Court by referring to Parsion Devi [(1997) 8 SCC 715] held
thus:
"The scope of review is limited and under the guise of
review, petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and
reargue the questions, which have already been addressed
and decided".
14. Again, in Govt. of NCT of Delhi v K.L. Rathi Steels
Ltd. [2024 SCC Online SC 1090], the Apex Court considered
the grounds for review in detail and held thus:
"Order XVLII does not end with the circumstances as S.114,
CPC, the substantive provision, does. Review power under
S.114 read with Order XLVII, CPC is available to be
exercised, subject to fulfilment of the above conditions, on
setting up by the review petitioner any of the following
grounds:
(i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence; or
(ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or
(iii) any other sufficient reason."
15. In Sujatha Aniyeri v. Kannur University [2025 KHC
OnLine 212] in which one of us is a party [Muralee Krishna S.,
R.P. Nos.521 and 526 of 2025 2025:KER:42613
J] after considering the point, what constitutes an error apparent
on the face of the record, this court held that review jurisdiction
is not an appeal in disguise. The review does not permit rehearing
of the matter on merits. If the direction in the judgment was
erroneous, then the remedy was to challenge the same by filing
an appeal and not by filing a review petition.
16. Though the petitioners are seeking review of the
common judgment passed by this Court in the writ petitions, it is
not specifically pleaded in the review petitions as to the specific
ground under which they seek review of the judgment. The
pleadings regarding the same are conspicuously absent in the
review petitions. According to the petitioners, they are entitled to
file a revision against the order of the 4th respondent, Revenue
Divisional Officer (arrayed as Sub Collector in the party array),
before the Government under Rule 21(9) of the Rules, 1964 and
it was not considered by this court while passing the judgment.
But as rightly pointed out by the learned Special Government
Pleader, in Karimtharuvi Tea Estates Ltd. [1999 (1) KLT 33]
this Court held that provision as void and unenforceable. In such
circumstances, the petitioners cannot contend that this Court did
R.P. Nos.521 and 526 of 2025 2025:KER:42613
not consider the right of the petitioners under the said provision.
Moreover, the perusal of the judgment would show that this Court
has considered in detail the rival contentions of the parties
regarding the entitlement of the petitioners for assignment of the
land. It appears from the nature of the contentions raised by the
petitioners that they are now trying to use the review jurisdiction
of this Court as an appeal in disguise, which is not permissible
under law.
Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and
the submissions made at the Bar, we find no sufficient reason to
hold that the petitioners have made out any of the grounds
provided under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the
Code of Civil Procedure to review the common judgment dated
03.03.2025 passed by this Court in these writ petitions.
In the result, review petitions stand dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
sks MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
