Dismissed

Hydrose Alias Thandanaparambil Sayed Mohamed Hydrose v. Biju.R

Kerala HC18 Jul 2019RP/541/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Discovered that there is no error apparent on the face of the record to justify review. Clarified that the petitioner retains the right to challenge the Revenue Divisional Officer's order before an appropriate forum despite the closure of the contempt petition.

What did the court decide?

Disposal of review petitions RP No.541 of 2019 and RP No.607 of 2019 with observations clarifying remedies.

Hydrose Alias Thandanaparambil Sayed Mohamed… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 27TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶5

RP.No.541 of 2019 IN WP(C). 5222/2019

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 5222/2019 of HIGHCOURT OF KERALA

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER/5TH RESPONDENT:

¶8

HYDROSE ALIAS THANDANAPARAMBIL SAYED MOHAMED HYDROSE S/O.THANDAPARAMBIIL SYED MOHAMED, THANDANAPAAMBIL HOUSE,ERIYAD.P.O, PIN-680666,KODUNGALLUR TALUK,

¶9

WORKING AS DUBAI,REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER K.A.MOHAMMED ASHRAF,S/O.LATE K.M.ABOO,AGED 59 YEARS,RESIDING AT 'MEBARAB',PANAYAPILLY,.THOPPUMPADY.P.O,PIN-682005.

¶10

BY ADVS. SMT.C.G.BINDU KUM.K.J.SARANYA RAJ SMT.AJITHA C.G.

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 BIJU.R KONKERIL,ERAMALLUR.P.O,CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA,PIN-688537.

¶13

2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶14

3 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, KRISHI BHAVAN,EZHUPUNNA, ERAMALOOR.P.O,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688537, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR.

¶15

4 EZHUPUNNA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PANCHAYATH OFFICE,EZHUPUNNA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688537, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶16

RP 541 & 607 of 2019

¶17

¶18

5 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, R.D.O.OFFICE,ALAPPUZHA-688001.

¶19

ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H.

¶20

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.07.2019, ALONG WITH RP.607/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

RP 541 & 607 of 2019

¶22

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶24

PRESENT

¶25

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶26

THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 27TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶27

RP.No.607 of 2019 IN Con.Case(C). 876/2019

¶28

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN Con.Case(C) 876/2019 DATED 14.6.2019 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶29

REVIEW PETITIONER/5TH RESPONDENT:

¶30

HYDROSE ALIAS THANDANAPARAMBIL SAYED MOHAMED HYDROSE

¶31

S/O. THANDANAPARAMBIL SAYED MOHAMMED, THANDANAPARAMBIL HOUSE, ERIYAD P.O, PIN-680 666, KODUNGALLUR TALUK.

¶32

WORKING AT DUBAI, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER K.A. MOHAMMED ASHRAF, S/O. LATE K.M. ABOO, AGED 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT MEHARAB, PANAYAPILLY, THOPPUMPADY P.O, PIN-682 005.

¶33

BY ADVS. SMT.C.G.BINDU KUM.K.J.SARANYA RAJ SMT.AJITHA C.G.

¶34

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENT:

¶35

1 BIJU.R AGED 53 YEARS KONKERIL, ERAMALLUR P.O, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688 537.

¶36

2 KRISHNATHEJA IAS,

¶37

AGE AND FAHTER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA-688 001

¶38

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.07.2019, ALONG WITH RP.541/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶39

RP 541 & 607 of 2019

¶40

¶41

O R D E R

¶42

The review in the writ petition is filed by the

¶43

5^th respondent seeking to review the judgment dated 21.2.2019, whereby 4^th respondent i.e., the Revenue Divisional Officer, Alappuzha is directed to finalise Ext.P4 complaint submitted by the petitioner in the writ petition and attain finality at the earliest possible time and at any rate within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Since the order was innocuous in nature, notice to 5^th respondent was dispensed with and it was thereafter that the direction was issued by this court. On the basis of the direction issued by this court, the matter was considered by the Revenue Divisional Officer and has passed an order dated 29.5.2019 holding that, the property held by the 5^th respondent in some of the survey numbers of

¶44

Ezhupunna village admeasuring 59.83 Ares is

¶45

remaining as paddy field in the data bank as well as in the basic tax register and therefore, the permit granted by the Secretary of the Ezhupunna Grama Panchayat is illegal and accordingly it was decided

¶46

RP 541 & 607 of 2019

¶47

¶48

to take action against the 5^th respondent.

¶49

The paramount contention advanced by the

¶50

review petitioner is that, while passing Ext.R1(a) order, the review petitioner was not heard and therefore, the order is bad. In my considered

¶51

opinion, there is no case for the review petitioner that, there is any error apparent on the face of

¶52

the record so as to interfere in the review since if there is any order passed by the authority in accordance with the directions in the judgment, review petitioner has got remedy to challenge the

¶53

same before an appropriately constituted Forum.

¶54

Merely because, review petitioner was not heard, that by itself will not confer cause of action to

¶55

make the judgment passed by this court susceptible to review.

¶56

First respondent in the review petition

¶57

i.e., the petitioner in the writ petition has filed

¶58

a counter affidavit basically contending that,

¶59

there is no error apparent on the face of the

¶60

record enabling the review petitioner to seek review. A reply affidavit is also filed by the

¶61

RP 541 & 607 of 2019 6

¶62

petitioner reiterating the stand adopted in the

¶63

writ petition.

¶64

Review in the contempt petition is also filed by the 5^th respondent in the writ petition

¶65

contending that, the contempt petition filed by the 1^st respondent i.e., the writ petitioner was closed by this court recording that, the directions contained in the judgment is complied with, and therefore, there is no reason for pursuing the contempt petition any further. There the

¶66

apprehension expressed by the review petitioner is

¶67

that, since the contempt petition was closed holding that, the direction issued by this court in

¶68

the judgment was complied with, even if review

¶69

petitioner challenges the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer in accordance with the

¶70

directions issued by this court, the order in the

¶71

contempt petition will stand in the way of

¶72

authority entertaining any challenge made by the review petitioner.

¶73

I have heard learned counsel for review

¶74

petitioner, learned Government Pleader as well as

¶75

RP 541 & 607 of 2019 7

¶76

learned counsel appearing for 1^st respondent i.e., the writ petitioner.

¶77

In my considered view, there is no error

¶78

apparent on the face of the record so far as the judgment in writ petition is concerned. So far as the order passed in the contempt of court case is concerned, if the review petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, review petitioner has got remedy under law, and that cannot be termed as any error apparent on the face of the record merely because review petitioner was not

¶79

heard while the decision was taken as directed by this court in the judgment in the writ petition.

¶80

Since the order was passed by the authority in accordance with the directions contained in the judgment, there was no reason for pursuing the

¶81

contempt petition any further and it was thereupon that, the contempt petition was closed.

¶82

Therefore, I do not think, review

¶83

petitioner has made out any case in both the review petitions justifying interference of this court.

¶84

However, I make it clear that, whatever

¶85

RP 541 & 607 of 2019

¶86

¶87

observations contained in the judgment in contempt case shall not stand in the way of any authority considering any challenge made by the review petitioner against Ext.R1(a) order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer as per the directions contained in the judgment in question.

¶88

The review petitions are disposed of with the above observation.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY

Smv 19.7.2019

JUDGE

RP 541 & 607 of 2019

¶94

¶95

APPENDIX OF RP 541/2019

¶96

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :

¶97

ANNEXURE A1	TRUE COPY 7.6.2019 E ASHRAF.	OF THE PO XECUTED IN	WER OF ATTORNEY DATED FAVOUR OF K.A.MOHAMMED
ANNEXURE A2	CERTIFIED 21.21.2019	COPY OF IN W.P.(C)	THE JUDGMENT DATED NO.5222 OF 2019.
ANNEXURE A3	TRUE COPY ISSUED BY	OF THE STO THE VILLAGE	P MEMO DATED 29.05.2019 OFFICER,EZHUPUNNA.
ANNEXURE A4	TRUE COPY I.A.N.1661 FILE OF 4.10.2018.	OF THE /2018 IN MUNSIFF'S	COMMISSION REPORT IN O.S.NO.334/2018 ON THE COURT,CHERTHALA DATED
ANNEXURE A5	TRUE COPY 4TH RESPON	OF THE BUI DENT DATED	LDING PERMIT ISSUED BY 25.01.2018.

¶98

RP 541 & 607 of 2019

¶99

¶100

APPENDIX OF RP 607/2019

¶101

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶102

ANNEXURE A1	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.2.2019 IN W.P.(C) NO. 5222 OF 2019.
ANNEXURE A2	TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DATED 29.05.2019 ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, EZHUPUNNA.
ANNEXURE A3	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF REPORT OF THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE.
ANNEXURE A4	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT IN I.A. NO. 1661/2018 IN O.S. NO. 334/2018 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHERTHALA DATED 4.10.2018.
ANNEXURE A5	TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 25.01.2018.
ANNEXURE A6	CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CONT. CASE (C) NO. 876/2019 DATED 14.6.2019 OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

Hydrose Alias Thandanaparambil Sayed Mohamed Hydrose v. Biju.R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hydrose Alias Thandanaparambil Sayed Mohamed Hydrose v. Biju.R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaji Mathew, Vs the Chief Engineer

Siraj Maidan Koya Vs the Administrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep

Puthalath Balakrishnan Vs Manohar K

Johnson Mathew, Vs M/S.Sundaram Finance Limited

Dr.Mohandas Vs the Travancore Cochin MEDICAl council

Pushparaj.N@Pushpan Santhitheeram Vs Shoranur Municipality