SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 12961

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J
JAMNA NIZAMUDHEEN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
RP NO. 226 OF 2026 | WP(C) NO.19573 OF 2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.C.K.SHERIN
For the Respondents: SRI.N.B.SUNIL NATH

Errors in judgment regarding property designation corrected; review application dismissed.

Headnote:In reviewing the judgment dated 05.02.2026 in W.P.

(C) No.19573 of 2023, the court identified errors in the reporting of the property status as 'converted land in the data bank.' The review established that properties Sy. Nos.182/2-C2 and 182/2-C3 were not to be set aside but addressed in the original context. Therefore, orders related to the above should follow expeditiously within eight weeks, ultimately resulting in the dismissal of the review application.

Table of Content
1. introduction of the review petition and its parties. (Para 1 , 2)
2. identification and correction of errors in the judgment. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. court's directive regarding the expeditious completion of orders. (Para 6)

O R D E R

This is a petition filed seeking review of the judgment of this Court dated 05.02.2026 in W.P. (C) No.19573 of 2023.

2. I have heard Smt.C.K.Sherin, the learned counsel for the review petitioner, as well as Sri.N.B.Sunil Nath, the learned Government Pleader.

3. The review petitioner has pointed out that there are certain errors in the first paragraph as well as in the concluding paragraph of the judgment.

4. As regards the first paragraph, this Court has recorded that the property concerned was described as a converted land in the BTR. Actually, this was recorded as converted land in the “data bank”. Therefore, the first paragraph of the judgment dated 05.02.2026 would stand corrected and the sentence “it was included as converted land in the BTR” is to be read as “it was included as converted land in the data bank”.

5. Secondly, the petitioner points out that the properties covered in Sy. Nos.182/2-C2 and 182/2-C3 have already been removed from the data bank, as they were converted prior to 2008 while passing Ext.P2 order. In view of the afore, there is no requirement for setting aside Exts.P2 and P5 in their entirety. It is made clear that Exts.P2 and P5 would stand set aside only as regards the properties other than the properties covered in Sy.

Nos.182/2-C2 and 182/2-C3.

6. The authorised officer to pass orders as directed in the judgment sought to be reviewed, with specific reference to the contents of the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC) report, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

This review petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top