K.V.XAVIER Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal was originally disposed by judgment dated 12.06.2014. At that time, this court took note of the submission of the learned Government Pleader that, pursuant to the order of the Single Judge dated 20.06.2013, and the dismissal of the application for review on 03.09.2013, a notice had been issued on 15.01.2014 proposing a survey of the lands of the writ petitioner on 24.01.2014, but, the petitioner had refused to accept notice and did not cooperate with the survey. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner had then submitted that he would co-operate with the survey. Recording the said submission on behalf of the writ petitioner/appellant, the writ appeal was closed by directing that the proceedings would be completed at the earliest.

(2.) Seeking to review the judgment dated 12.06.2014 of this court, a review petition was filed by the additional 7th respondent in the writ appeal who, at the stage of filing the review petition, was a third party, not having been a party in the earlier proceedings before this Court. It was the case of the said additional 7th respondent, Sri.V.J.Sebastian Francis, that a portion of the property, over which the writ petitioner was claiming rights and seeking a survey, belonged to him, and therefore, the writ petitioner could not claim any right to have a survey conducted over the said lands. This Court considered the submissions of the additional 7th respondent and passed the following detailed order while reviewing its earlier judgment dated 12.06.2014:

(3.) When the matter was taken up today, the learned counsel Sri.Joseph M.P. for the appellant (Sri.K.V.Xavier), was not able to show us any material that would dislodge the factual finding in the order dated 20.09.2014 referred above, which clearly showed that, in the original petition (OP No. 15375/2003), the claim of the petitioner, and the survey sought by him, were in respect of 16.10 cents of land situated in Survey No.1502/1 and 2 of Kumbalangi Village, Kochi Taluk and not in respect of adjacent lands. The claim in respect of adjacent lands, in particular, the claim for "patta" over adjacent lands said to be forming part of 'inam' lands, was raised for the first time in the review petition filed against the order dated 20.06.2013 of the learned Single Judge. The said review petition, as already noted, was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. In the appeal, therefore, the direction that was given by this Court to survey the lands of the petitioner, could not have taken into account the lands, over which the petitioner raised a claim only in the review petition, namely the alleged 'inam' lands.