JOHN MATHEW Vs. T. OOMME PANICKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Smt.T.S.Maya, the learned counsel for the review petitioner (Sri.John Mathew), Sri.Abdul Razzak, the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent (Sri.T.Oommen Panicker) and Sri.Saju J.Panicker, the learned counsel for the 5 th respondent (Sri.Manoharan.B) and also heard the learned Government Pleader Sri.Tek Chand for respondents 2 and 3.

(2.) The Review Petition has been filed by Sri.John Mathew, who was not a party in the W.A. No.1460 of 2016. In the Review Petition, the said John Mathew is aggrieved by the directions issued by this Court while disposing W.A.No1460 of 2016 through the judgment dated 29.08.2018. The appellant in the Writ Appeal, who was the petitioner in W.P(C).No.29205 of 2011 had preferred the Appeal aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.01.2015 of the learned Single Judge, whereby his prayer for restoration of land that was attached and sold pursuant to revenue recovery proceedings for realisation of compensation amounts awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (M.A.C.T) was refused by the learned Single Judge. The learned Judge had found that the petitioner was only entitled to a reimbursement of the amounts deposited on his behalf before the M.A.C.T, from the Insurance Company.

(3.) When the Writ Appeal came up for hearing on 09.08.2018, we had asked the learned counsel for the auction purchaser of the property (Sri.B.Manoharan) whether he would be inclined to offer the property that originally belonged to the writ petitioner for a consideration that would taken into account the amounts spent for purchasing the property together with the expenses incurred by the auction purchaser for maintaining the property and contesting the litigation in respect of the property. In subsequent proceedings before us, a settlement was arrived at and the auction purchaser agreed to accept an amount of Rs.6.5 lakhs as consideration for the re-conveyance of the property in favour of the appellant/writ petitioner. On the basis of the said understanding, the Writ Appeal was closed directing that on the writ appellant paying an amount of Rs.6.5 lakhs by way of demand draft to the auction purchaser, in the presence of the Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Kottarakkara within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, the Tahsildar shall caused the sale certificate issued in favour of the auction purchaser to be cancelled and would also comply with other procedures necessary to ensure that the liabilities of the appellant covered by the revenue recovery proceedings are treated as closed and the endorsements in respect of the property before the Sub Registrar are duly effaced.