Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 4368

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTRED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – Appellant
Versus
ZAINUL ABIDEEN ABDUL HAMEED – Respondent
RP NO. 28 OF 2026 | WP(C) NO.19947 OF 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Government Pleader
For the Respondents: Power of Attorney Holder, ABDUL HAMEED

Court has the authority to restore a proceeding based on procedural misapprehension, maintaining jurisdictional correctness.

Headnote:This review petition concerns the judgment dated 27.10.2025 in W.P.

(C) No.19947/2024 where the court intervened based on an order from the District Collector. The Government Pleader contended that consideration should revert to the Revenue Divisional Officer. The court found merit in the argument presented. The main issues addressed included the jurisdiction of authority and the restoration of the writ petition. The court established that the initial review warrants restoration of prior proceedings based on procedural reconsideration. The review petition is allowed and the prior judgment is recalled, restoring the writ petition.

Table of Content
1. reviewing procedural authority and decision. (Para 1 , 2)
2. the necessity of restoring prior proceedings. (Para 3)

ORDER

This review petition is filed to review the judgment dated 27.10.2025 in W.P.(C) No.19947/2024.

2. The short point raised by the Government Pleader is that in the judgment this Court interfered with the order mainly for the reason that the District Collector, Malappuram, as per Ex.P3 order, directed to reconsider the application by the Sub Collector instead of the Revenue Divisional Officer. It is submitted that earlier the application was considered by the Revenue Divisional Officer.

3. After going through the memorandum of the review petition, I think there is some force in the argument of the Government Pleader. Hence, I think the judgment can be recalled and writ petition can be restored.

Therefore, this review petition is allowed, and the judgment dated 27.10.2025 in W.P.(C) No.19947/2024 is recalled and the writ petition is restored.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 4368

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMP.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JTHE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTRED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – AppellantVersusZAINUL ABIDEEN ABDUL HAMEED – RespondentRP NO. 28 OF 2026 | WP(C) NO.19947 OF 2025

Court has the authority to restore a proceeding based on procedural misapprehension, maintaining jurisdictional correctness.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTRED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – Appellant
Versus
ZAINUL ABIDEEN ABDUL HAMEED – Respondent
RP NO. 28 OF 2026 | WP(C) NO.19947 OF 2025