IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 337 of 2009(D)
1. JOSEPH K.J. (60 YEARS), S/O. MATHAI
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M.RAMANATHAN NAIR, AGED 56 YEARS,
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF SURVEY,
4. SANTHAMMA W/O. K.J.JOSEPH,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :26/03/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J
-------------------
R.P.337/2009 in W.P.(C).34689/2008
--------------------
Dated this the 26th day of March, 2009
ORDER
Third respondent in the writ petition has filed
this review petition essentially raising a contention
that certain aspects, which according to him were
vital, were not disclosed by the petitioner in the writ
petition. This inter alia relates to the filing of a
counter claim by the writ petitioner in
O.S.239/2005, seeking a declaration of title in
relation to the pathway in dispute. It is further
contended that based on the judgment which is
sought to be reviewed, a motion has been made by
the writ petitioner before the Civil Court for a stay
of further proceedings in O.S.239/2005 on the
ground that this Court had directed a statutory
revision to be disposed of by the District Collector.
2. A direction to the District Collector to dispose
of Ext.P2 revision in the writ petition obviously does
not mean anything more than what it is purported to
R.P.337/2009
2
convey. I have not considered the merits of the
contentions of the petitioner nor was the direction
intended to enable the writ petitioner to seek a stay
of proceedings in O.S.No.239/2005 or any other Suit
for that matter. It is open to the review petitioner
to bring to the notice of the Civil Court, the
observations being made by this Court in the review
petition.
3. Learned Government Pleader submits that the
District Superintendent of Survey who is competent
to consider the review petition under Section 13A of
the Surveys and Boundaries Act, has already heard
the parties. The submission is refuted by the
learned counsel for the review petitioner. Be that
as it may. I make it clear that I have not considered
the contentions raised by the writ petitioner on
merits and all that I have directed is that the
statutory authority exercising powers should
consider Ext.P2 revision, after notice to all affected
R.P.337/2009
3
persons and take a decision in accordance with law.
In these circumstances, I do not find any reason to
review the judgment. Review petition is accordingly
dismissed.
V.GIRI,
Judge
mrcs