IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 1018 of 2010(Q)
1. KOCHUKRISHNAN,S/O.MADHAVIKUTTY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. BABU.C.S,CHIRACKAL VEETTIL SREEDHARAN,
... Respondent
2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ALUVA WEST VILLAGE,
3. THE TALUK TAHASILDAR,ALUVA TALUK.
4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
5. CHOORNIKKARA PANCHAYAT,REP.BY ITS
For Petitioner :SRI.S.EASWARAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :11/11/2010
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
..................................
Review Petition No. 1018 of 2010
.....................................................
Dated: 11th day of November, 2010
ORDER
1st respondent in W.P(C)No.24242/2010 seeks a review of
the judgment dated 16.8.2010 passed by this Court at the stage
of admission directing the 4th respondent Revenue Divisional
Officer, Fort Cochin to pass final orders on Ext.P4 petition filed by
the 1st respondent herein (writ petitioner) under Section 133
Cr.P.C claiming rights in respect of a pathway alleged to be a
public path way.
2. I heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner as
well as the learned counsel for the writ petitioner.
3. The grievance of the review petitioner is that the writ
petition was disposed of without hearing him and that when there
are sufficient materials to dissuade the R.D.O. from proceeding
further, in view of the concurrent decrees passed by the Civil
Court inter parties in the suit filed by the writ petitioner as
O.S.No.72/1999 before the Munsiff’s Court, Aluva as confirmed by
the Sub Court, North Paravur in the judgment and decree dated
17.2.2009 in A.S.No.101/2004, the R.D.O. may proceed further
Review Petition No. 1018 of 2010
2
and pass final orders adverse to the interest of the review
petitioner by relying on irrelevant materials.
4. All that, this court said in the judgment dated
16.8.2010 is as follows:-
“2. If the 4th respondent is prima facie convinced that
Ext.P4 application is to be proceeded with further and
that the pathway in question is a public pathway, he
shall pass a conditional order under Section 133(1) Cr.P.C
calling upon the opposite party to enter appearance and
show-cause why the conditional order should not be
made absolute. The matter cannot be kept pending
endlessly without passing any orders on the petition.
This writ petition is disposed of directing the 4th
respondent to pass appropriate orders in accordance
with law on Ext.P4 petition.”
5. The review petitioner herein will have an opportunity to
show-cause before the R.D.O. as to why the conditional order
should not be made absolute and why the proceedings should be
terminated. It is also open to him to bring to the notice of the
Revenue Divisional Officer, the impact of the concurrent decrees
Review Petition No. 1018 of 2010
3
passed by the Civil Court. In that event, I am sure that the
Revenue Divisional Officer will advert to those materials as well
before proceeding further. Clarifying this, this review petition is
disposed of.
V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE)
dmb