Kerala High Court
Vigy Abraham vs The District Collector on 15 October, 2025
1
R.P.No.1200 of 2025 in W.P.(C) No.24539 of 2019
2025:KER:76729
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 23RD ASWINA, 1947
RP NO. 1200 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.07.2025 IN WP(C) NO.24539 OF
2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER IN W.P.(C):
VIGY ABRAHAM
AGED 60 YEARS, W/O. LATE ABRAHAM ARONNIL,
KANDAKKODE HOUSE, THAMMANIMATTOM KARA,
RAMAMANGALAM - P.O., AIYAKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE,
KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PIN - 686663
BY ADV.
SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN W.P.(C):
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION,
KANNANAD - P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
2 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
NATIONAL HIGHWAY, VYTTILA P.O.,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682019
3 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
NATIONAL HIGHWAY, EDAPPALLY PO,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682024
2
R.P.No.1200 of 2025 in W.P.(C) No.24539 of 2019
2025:KER:76729
4 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
NATIONAL HIGHWAY, MOOVATTUPUZHA P.O.,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686673
5 POOTHRIKKA GRAMA PANCHAYATH
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, POOTHRIKKA PO,
AIYKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682308
6 THE PRESIDENT
POOTHRIKKA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, POOTHRIKKA PO,
AIYKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682308
7 JANARDHANAN NAIR
AGED 50 YEARS,
CONTRACTOR, VADAKKEPUTHEN-PURACKAL HOUSE,
VARAPETTY POST, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK,
ERNALKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686691
8 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
AIYKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE,
KOLENCHERRY P.O., KUNNATHUNADU TALUK,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682311
9 THE TAHSILDAR
KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PERUMBAVOOR - P.O.,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682542
10 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
SECRETARIAT BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
BY ADV.
SRI.SYAMANTHAK B.S., GOVERNMENT PLEADER
3
R.P.No.1200 of 2025 in W.P.(C) No.24539 of 2019
2025:KER:76729
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
4
R.P.No.1200 of 2025 in W.P.(C) No.24539 of 2019
2025:KER:76729
ORDER
This petition seeking review of the judgment dated
04.07.2025 in W.P.(C) No.24539 of 2019, has been filed at the
instance of the writ petitioner, placing reliance on Annexures A1
to A4 documents.
2. I have heard Sri.P.Kuruvilla Jacob, the learned
counsel for the review petitioner, Sri.Sajeev Kumar K.Gopal, the
learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Panchayath and
Sri.B.S.Syamanthak, the learned Government Pleader.
3. The learned counsel for the review petitioner placed
considerable reliance on Annexure A3 - judgment dated
18.11.2022 in Con.Case(C) No.2019 of 2019, in support of
his contention that, it was the panchayath authorities, who
were responsible for the unfortunate incident referred to in the
writ petition. This Court notices that the afore documents
were forming part of the writ petition, which was disposed of
by the judgment now sought to be reviewed. A perusal of
Annexure A3 judgment, relied on by the learned counsel, would
also show that, ultimately, this Court has only recorded the
R.P.No.1200 of 2025 in W.P.(C) No.24539 of 2019
2025:KER:76729
statement filed on behalf of the Government as well as the
submissions made by the learned Senior Government Pleader
regarding the alleged involvement of the Panchayath
functionaries as well as the JCB operator. This Court also noticed
that a Calendar Case, with respect to the same allegations,
is pending before the Criminal Court. Noticing the afore, this
Court had disposed of the Contempt of Court case filed at the
instance of the writ petitioner, holding that, it is ultimately for
the Criminal Court to take a call in the matter in the pending
Calendar Case.
4. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that, no
valid reasons have been made out for seeking review of the
judgment dated 04.07.2025, especially when the current status
of the Calendar Case has not been updated by the writ
petitioner.
5. I find no valid reasons for entertaining this review
petition, especially when the writ petitioner has already been
permitted to make an application before the District Collector,
pointing out the actual facts and figures, further directing the
R.P.No.1200 of 2025 in W.P.(C) No.24539 of 2019
2025:KER:76729
District Collector to ascertain the actual authority responsible
for carrying out the demolition.
Resultantly, this review petition would stand dismissed.
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON
JUDGE
anm
R.P.No.1200 of 2025 in W.P.(C) No.24539 of 2019
2025:KER:76729
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED
21.01.2020.
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 15.07.22
FILED BY THE SHO OF PUTHENCRUZ POLICE
STATION IN CON. CASE (C) NO.2019/2019.
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18-11-
2022 DELIVERED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN
CON. CASE (C) NO.2019/2019.
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY AFFIDAVIT FILED BY
THE REVIEW PETITIONER DATED 16-06-2025.
