(1.) This Review Petition is filed by the respondents in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition was disposed of directing the 1st respondent to take a decision on Exhibit P7 in the light of Exhibit P6 communication and issue the certificate as sought for by the petitioner. In is mentioned in the Review Petition that there was a mistake in Exhibit P6 order which has been corrected as per Annexure R1(a). The learned Government Pleader submitted that if Exhibit P6 is implemented as such,then the petitioner will be having property in Survey No.2/1 which is actually a Government purambokku. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that the property assigned to the writ petitioner is clearly demarcated going by Annexures R1 and R2, copies of Pattayam and Mahazar, which was having the original survey number as 677/1. He also invited my attention to Annexure R7, which is a request made by him to conduct a survey of the property, which was assigned to him and which is recorded in the BTR and receipts for payment of tax and assign him new sub division . It is evident that the reply Exhibit P6 was issued to Exhibit R7 which stands recalled as per Annexure R1(a).
(2.) Evidently, different items of properties were assigned to the petitioner and his father and they were lying adjacent. Both of them have sold portions of the properties assigned to them. The assignees also were assigned two sub division numbers. It is in that process that these proceedings were issued.
(3.) Therefore to give a quietus to the issue, it is only proper that survey and measurement of the properties, that is, property assigned to the petitioner as per Annexure R1 Pattayam and the boundaries of which are demarcated in Annexure R2 Mahazar is identified and a sub division is allotted accordingly. In that view of the matter, the operative portion of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.27242/09 dated 8.2.2010 will have to be modified. The Review Petition is therefore allowed. The judgment is recalled.