Disposes of a review petition challenging a judgment concerning eviction of encroachers. The court holds that the impugned judgment correctly considered relevant materials including prior judgments, and allowing a review is not warranted.
Review petition dismissed holding no grounds were made out.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU &
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN
TUESDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2007 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1929
RP.No. 518 of 2007(E)
IN W.P.(C) NO..36377 OF 2004
PETITIONERS: THIRD PARTIES:
BY ADV. SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY
BY ADV. SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.MEERA
ADV. SRI.G.UNNIKRISHNON SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR SRI.K.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.R.GIREESH VARMA SRI.K.N.VENUGOPALA PANICKER, SC, TDB
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/06/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN,J.
R.P.NO. 518 OF 2OO7 in W.P.(C). NO. 36377 OF 2004
---------------------------------------------------Dated this the 19th June, 2007
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN,J .
The review petitioners, who were not parties to W.P.(C) No.36377 of 2004, seek to get the judgment dated 4.4.2006 in the Writ Petition reviewed.
R.P. NO.518 OF 2007 IN W.P.(C) NO.36377 OF 2004
:: 2 ::
“5. The main argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners Sri.M.V.S.Nampoothiry is that in Ext.P10 order, it stated that the report and plan sent by the Superintendent of Survey and Land Records will form part of the order. According to them, the Revenue Authorities are taking the view that this Court has approved the plan and report. We are of the view that this argument is not correct. We have repeatedly stated that this Court has not gone into the question whether the report and plan are correct or not. This Court only reiterated the contention raised by the petitioners in those cases and this Court has never held that the petitioners are the encroachers. During the course of hearing, we directed the Revenue Authorities to produce the files. When the matter came up for hearing yesterday, we were told that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvalla has issued notice to the petitioners that their appeals will be heard on 31.1.2004. In the light of the fact that the appeals are pending, it is not necessary for us to go into the merits of the matter.”
By Annexure VIII judgment, this Court directed that the District Collector shall hear the appeals filed by the review petitioners challenging the Land Conservancy proceedings and dispose of the same.
R.P. NO.518 OF 2007 IN W.P.(C) NO.36377 OF 2004
:: 3 ::
and Annexure IX order, dated 5.1.2005 was passed by him, whereby a direction was issued to further survey the property by an officer higher in rank to the District Superintendent of Surveys.
“8. In the judgment dated 30-1-2004 in W.P.(C) No.38593/2003, the Honourable High Court have ordered that the hearing of appeal by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvalla who was former Tahsildar, Thiruvalla was not proper and hence District Collector may hear the appeal or he may delegate to hear the appeal by some other Revenue Divisional Officer. As per the order of the Court, the present Revenue Divisional Officer was directed to hear the appeals as per rules and the case is under trial in the Revenue Divisional Office, Thiruvalla. The case was posted on 5-1-2005. Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvalla has now reported that there is discrepancies in Survey work already done and that has to be surveyed by a Survey Officer above the rank of Superintendent
R.P. NO.518 OF 2007 IN W.P.(C) NO.36377 OF 2004
:: 4 ::
of Survey, Pathanamthitta, with reference to Litho plan and resurvey records.”
It was taking note of these averments which related to Annexure VIII judgment and Annexure IX order dated 5.1.2005 that the judgment sought to be reviewed was passed. In spite of the fact that Annexure VI order states that the report made by the District Surveyor shall form part of the records, taking note of Annexure VIII judgment, the counter affidavit and the submission made by all concerned, this Court directed that the Director of Surveys, Thiruvananthapuram, who was impleaded as additional respondent No.8 suo motu, or any other officer of his choice, not below the rank of District Superintendent of Surveys, shall conduct the survey with notice to all affected parties within three months. It was also directed that appropriate action under the Land Conservancy Act shall also be taken against the persons who were found in unauthorised occupation of the Temple property. The contention put forward by the review petitioners that Annexure VIII judgment was not taken note of by this Court while disposing of the Writ Petition which is sought to be reviewed, is not correct. All the materials placed before Court were taken note of while disposing of the Writ Petition. No prejudice would be caused to the Review Petitioners
R.P. NO.518 OF 2007 IN W.P.(C) NO.36377 OF 2004
:: 5 ::
if the judgment sought to be reviewed is implemented. The Review Petitioners have no grievance against Annexure IX order dated 5.1.2005 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. By Annexure IX order, a fresh survey work was ordered to be conducted. The judgment sought to be reviewed also directs a survey demarcation to be made. Notice to all affected parties shall be given as per the directions in the judgment, before conducting survey. The Review Petitioners cannot have any grievance if survey is conducted. They are entitled to get notice before conducting the
survey. No grounds are made out to review the judgment.
The Review Petition is accordingly dismissed.
(H.L.DATTU) Chief Justice
(K.T.SANKARAN) Judge
ahz/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the review petitioners had a valid grievance that the judgment dated 4.4.2006 did not take note of the Annexure VIII judgment.
Whether grounds were made out to review the judgment seeking eviction of encroachers on temple property.
Arumughan Achari
Ganapathy Nampoothiry
S. Mahadeva Sharma
C.N. Sukumaran Nair
Travancore Devaswom Board
H.L. Dattu
K.T. Sankaran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
