Partly allowed

Kaithavalappil Khader Haji v. Palamadathil Kotyat Pathumma and Others

Kerala HC20 Jul 2010RP/1174/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a review petition filed by the 4th respondent against a writ judgment that exempted him from notice. The court found the original judgment liable to review due to the violation of natural justice. The judgment was recalled and the writ petition restored to the file for hearing.

What did the court decide?

The judgment dated 13-7-2009 is recalled and the writ petition is restored to file for hearing along with Crl. R.P. No. 3118/2009.

Kaithavalappil Khader Haji Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2010 / 29TH ASHADHA 1932

¶4

RP.No. 1174 of 2009(G)

¶5

---------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.19506/2009 Dated 13/07/2009 ....................

¶6

REVIEW PETITIONER(S): 4TH RESPONDENT

¶7

¶8

KAITHAVALAPPIL KHADER HAJI, S/O. KOYA HAJI, VENGARA AMSOM, KUTTOOR DESOM,TIRURANGADI TALIK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER

¶10

RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3

¶11

¶12

PALAMADATHIL KOTYAT PATHUMMA, W/O.LATE KOYISSAN ALAVI HAJI, VENGARA AMSOM, KUTTOOR DESOM, POST KUTTOOR NORTH, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶13

VENGARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, POST CHERUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

THE SECRETARY, VENGARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, POST VENGARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶15

THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VENGARA VILLAGE, POST VENGARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶16

ADV. SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR FOR R3

¶17

SRI.HARISH R. MENON FOR R3

¶18

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

S. Siri Jagan, J.

¶20

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶21

R.P. No. 1174 of 2009.

¶22

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶23

Dated this, the 20^th day of July, 2010.

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

The petitioner seeks review of the judgment of this Court dated 13-7-2009 in W.P(C) No. 19506/2009, which reads thus:

¶26

“Alleging encroachment on the part of the 4^th respondent on a public pathway, which according to the petitioner, is used by her and several others in the locality, Ext. P2 complaint has been filed before the Village officer as also before the Panchayat.

¶27

Having heard the learned Government Pleader also, there will be a direction to the 3^rd respondent to look into Ext. P2 and if after due enquiry the allegations are found to be correct, it shall be forwarded to the Revenue Divisional Officer and if found appropriate, proceedings shall be taken under Section 133 of the Cr. P.C. Needful shall be done within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.”

¶28

The petitioner's contention is that the petitioner in the writ petition has not stated the facts correctly in the writ petition, which prompted this Court to pass the judgment without issuing notice to him. According to the petitioner in the review petition, if notice had been issued in the writ petition to him, who was the 4^th respondent in the writ petition, and he was also heard, the judgment would have been different.

¶29

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in the writ petition also.

¶30

Insofar as the petitioner in the review petition, who was the 4^th respondent in the writ petition, was not issued notice in the writ petition and he was not heard, I am satisfied that the judgment is

¶31

R.P. No. 1174/2009 -: 2 :-

¶32

liable to be reviewed. Accordingly, the judgment dated 13-7-2009 is recalled and the writ petition is restored to file.

¶33

Post the writ petition for hearing along with Crl. R.P. No. 3118/2009.

¶34

Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.

¶35

Tds/

¶36

[TRUE COPY]

¶37

P.S TO JUDGE.

Kaithavalappil Khader Haji v. Palamadathil Kotyat Pathumma and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaithavalappil Khader Haji v. Palamadathil Kotyat Pathumma and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.v.Sundaran Vs P.Dhanesh Kumar and Another

State of Kerala Vs M/S.Nelliampathy Plantations Ltd.

Dr.Vijayalakshmi R Nair Vs Union of India

Jemma Sunny Vs R.v.Jineesh

Commander K.P.Sasidharan Vs Union of India

P.K.Muhammed Koya Vs the State of Kerala