The High Court of Kerala disposed of a review petition clarifying that an earlier common judgment was limited to properties owned by a specific petitioner and would not cover properties belonging to the review petitioner.
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 HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2015/2ND MAGHA, 1936
RP.No. 39 of 2015 ()
--------------------------------(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO. 26493/2014 DATED 03/12/2014)
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
THE MAMPAD RUBBER MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED., MAMPAD, MAMPAD VILLAGE, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR AND AUTHORISED SIGNATORY SRI. SHAJI ISMAIL, PALACKAL, KANJIRAPPALLY, PIN:682 253.
BY ADV. SRI.P.M.POULOSE
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MAMPAD VILLAGE, NILAMBUR TALUK, PULIKALODY P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 542.
BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.A.FAYAZ
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
========================= R.P.No.39 of 2015 in W.P(C).No.26493 of 2014 ============================ Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2015
ORDER
The review petitioner sought to review the common judgment on the ground that in the common judgment, there is no reference to the properties owned and possessed by the review petitioner. The review petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of 1.09 acres in resurvey 414/1B (presently resurvey 172/4 in Block 82 of Mampad village) based on Ext.P1. The review petitioner was also in possession of 23.797 in resurvey No.414/1B (presently resurvey 172/5 in Block 82 of Mampad village) as per Ext.P2. In fact, there is an omission to mention the properties owned by the review petitioner in the judgment. Therefore, it is made clear that the judgment will also cover the properties owned by the review petitioner as per Exts.P1 and P2 produced by the review petitioner in W.P(C).No.26493 of 2014.
The review petition is disposed of.
Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE.
Sbna/22/01/15
THE MAMPAD RUBBER MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED.
THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MAMPAD
A.MUHAMMAD MUSTAQUE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
