The court corrected a clerical error regarding property classification, emphasizing accurate legal representation.

ORDER

The review petition is filed to review the judgment dated 23.09.2025 on the assertion that the word ‘not’ has been left out from eighth line of paragraph No. 1. Actually, the petitioner’s property has not been classified as ‘nilam’ in Ext. P5 data bank, which is correctly stated in paragraph No. 8 of the judgment. Therefore, the word ‘not’ has to be included in the eighth line of paragraph No. 1.

2. Heard; the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 6th respondent.

3. On a consideration of the facts and the materials on record, I find that, due to a clerical omission, the word ‘not’ has been omitted from the eighth line of paragraph No. 1. However, it is rightly stated in paragraph No. 8 of the judgment.

4. In light of the inadvertent omission, I allow the review petition, by stating that the eighth line of paragraph No.1 shall be read as follows:

“However, in Ext.P5 notified data bank, the petitioner’s property has ‘not’ been classified as ‘nilam’ and in Ext. P6 Thandaper Register, the petitioner’s property has been classified as ‘purayidam’.”

This order shall be read in conjunction with the judgment dated 23.09.2025.