STATE OF KERALA REP BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT(LAND REVENUE) v. ABDUL SALAM
RP/315/2025 · 2025-04-04
T R Ravi
Writ Petition (Civil)body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 4139 (KER) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 4139 (KER) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2025:KER:29172 RP NO. 315 OF 2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947 RP NO. 315 OF 2025 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.01.2025 IN WP(C) NO.45409 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 IN WPC: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT(LAND REVENUE) SECRETARIAT ,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOZHIKODE COLLECTORATE,CIVIL STATION ,KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020 3 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LAND ACQUISITION-KIIFB) KOZHIKODE,A-BLOCK,2ND FLOOR,CIVIL STATION,KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673305 4 PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN,KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673001 5 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN,THIRUVAMBADY,KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673603 SMT.N.SUDHA DEVI, SPL.GP RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND 6TH RESPONDENT IN WPC: 1 ABDUL SALAM AGED 54 YEARS S/O ALI,ARANJIKUNDAN HOUSE,MUNDRAMBRA,UGRAPURAM P.O,AREEKODE,PERUPARAMBA.MALAPPURAM, PIN – 673639
2025:KER:29172 RP NO. 315 OF 2025 2 2 ICAR-INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SPICES RESEARCH REP.BY ITS DIRECTOR,MARIKUNNU P.O,KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673012 SRI. NIRMAL S., SRI. T.C.KRISHNA, SC, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SPICES RESEARCH, THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:29172 RP NO. 315 OF 2025 3 T.R. RAVI, J. -------------------------------------------- RP. No. 315 of 2025 in W.P(C).No.45409 of 2024 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of April, 2025 O R D E R The review petition has been filed challenging the
judgment dated 31.01.2025. A reading of the grounds raised in the review petition would show that they are in effect challenging the judgment on merits, which is not the purpose of a review. The remedy of the review petitioners is to prefer an appeal against the judgment and not a review. The review petition is hence dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the
judgment in appropriate proceedings.
Sd/- T.R.RAVI JUDGE LEK