← Library
High Court of KeralaRP/39/2015disposed of

The Mampad Rubber Manufacturing Company Ltd v. The Village Officer, Mampad Village

2015-01-22Honourable Mr. Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque2 pages

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.

2.

The judgment is reviewed to the above extent. In all other respects, the judgment would govern in the matter. It is made clear that reference of the properties in the common judgment is only in relation to the properties owned by the Writ Petitioner in W.P(C). No.26762 of 2014.

The review petition is disposed of.

Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE.

Sbna/22/01/15