Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Kerala · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3749 (KER)

KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. v. MANOJ K,

RP/254/2025 · 2025-03-28

Nitin Jamdar, S Manu

Review Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:KER:27836 R.P.No.254 of 2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NITIN JAMDAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1947 RP NO. 254 OF 2025 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.11.2024 IN WA NO.961 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA REVIEW PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2: 1 KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MUSEUM BAINS COMPOUND, KOWDIAR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003 2 THE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER THE KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED PALACE ROAD, CHEMBUKKAV, THRISSUR, PIN - 680020 BY ADV SMT.M.KABANI DINESH, SC, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS & ADDL.RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3/PETITIONER: 1 MANOJ K, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O KRISHNAMOORTHY MADHAVI MANDHIRAM, THENARI P.O, ELAPPULLY PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678622 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001 2025:KER:27836 R.P.No.254 of 2025 2 3 MUTHALAMADA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUTHALAMADA P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT- 678507 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:27836 R.P.No.254 of 2025 3 ORDER Dated this the 28th day of March, 2025 Nitin Jamdar, C.J. Heard Ms.M.Kabani Dinesh, learned Standing Counsel for the Review Petitioner, Mr.Jacob Sebastian, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1, Mr.K.P.Harish, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the State and Mr.V.A.Johnson (Varikkappallil), learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.3. 2. Having considered the facts and circumstances, as well as the averments made in the Review Petition, we find no reason to exercise the review jurisdiction. The contention that the order is incorrect in law and on facts is not a ground for review, as the remedy lies elsewhere. 3. The Review Petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Nitin Jamdar Chief Justice Sd/- S. Manu Judge vgd/29.03.25 2025:KER:27836 R.P.No.254 of 2025 4 APPENDIX OF RP 254/2025 PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE FURNISHED TO THE WRIT PETITIONER DURING THE HEARING ON 29.5.2023, ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE WRIT PETITIONER ON 2.6.2023 TO ANNEXURE A1, ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.