High Court Kerala High Court

M.V.Sreyams Kumar M.L.A vs National Adivasi Federation on 7 April, 2010

Kerala High Court
M.V.Sreyams Kumar M.L.A vs National Adivasi Federation on 7 April, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RP.No. 568 of 2009()


1. M.V.SREYAMS KUMAR M.L.A.,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. NATIONAL ADIVASI FEDERATION,
                       ...       Respondent

2. V.N.BALAN, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN,

3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

5. THE TAHSILDAR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

 Dated :07/04/2010

 O R D E R
                           K. M. JOSEPH &
                  M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
               - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                        R.P.No. 568 of 2009
                                       in
                         W.A.No. 348 of 2008
               - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
               Dated this the 7th day of April, 2010

                                O R D E R

Joseph, J.

By the impugned judgment, inter alia, this Court taking

note of the facts has directed as under:

” At this stage, the only order that we

can pass is to direct respondents 1 to 3 to take

effective steps to re-possess the land from the

4th respondent, if he is in illegal possession and

to distribute the same to the Adivasi people at

the earliest.”

2. We heard the learned senior counsel for the review

petitioner, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and also the

R.P.No. 568 of 2009

2

learned Government Pleader. Learned senior counsel for the review

petitioner points out that without issuing notice to the review

petitioner the impugned judgment came to be passed. He would further

point out that on the basis of the contents of paragraph 7, which we

have extracted, action has been taken against the review petitioner and

he is aggrieved. We feel that there is merit in the contention of the

learned senior counsel and the judgment should be reviewed. We

accordingly review the judgment.

(K. M. JOSEPH)
Judge

(M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS)
Judge
tm