COMMON ORDER

P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,J Heard Adv.Asaf Ali, the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner, Adv.P.A.Harish, the learned senior Government Pleader and Adv.Sharanya, the learned standing counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent Panchayat.

2. The learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that he is only aggrieved by the direction contained in the second part of paragraph 4 of the judgment, wherein it has been directed by this Court to restore the land as paddy land. According to the learned counsel, the competent authorities have already found that the land in question is a garden land and, therefore, the said finding is an error, which will affect the rights of the review petitioner.

3. On the other hand, the learned senior Government Pleader and the learned standing counsel appearing for the Panchayat submitted that the property involved is having a large extent consisting of paddy land, wet land and garden land, and hence, the prayer, as sought for by the review petitioners, cannot be allowed.

4. On an anxious consideration of the materials on record, we are of the view that the only purpose, for which the directions have been issued in the writ appeal, is to