Judgment dismisses appeal on maintainability due to no challenge against original judgment.

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

This is a rather interesting case, where the appellants challenge the order of the learned Single Judge in a Review Petition against the judgment in a writ petition; but without impelling one against the said judgment.

2. Sri. Jaju Babu, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Adv.Shivani - appearing for the respondents 1 to 4, raised an objection that this appeal is not maintainable, since the judgment is not under challenge.

3. Sri. Ranjith R.- learned Special Government Pleader, however, argued that his clients are only aggrieved by the manner in which the Review Petition was disposed of; and that it is, therefore, that this appeal has been so filed.

4. Apart from the fact that we find favour with the objection of the learned Senior Counsel, we notice that the learned Single Judge had delivered the judgment adverting to all relevant and germane aspects; including the report of the 5^th appellant - Village Officer, as also of the learned Advocate Commissioner deputed.

5. We are not for a moment saying that the report of the Advocate Commissioner is final; but, in the company of the other reports, it also requires to be given due weight. We see that this is all that what the Single Judge has done; to thus declare that the land cannot be treated as a paddy land. 6. Be that as it may, as mentioned above, the judgment is not under challenge, but only the order dismissing the Review Petition against it.

7. The learned Single Judge has disposed of the Review Petition, holding that the land seems to be declared as a ‘residential zone’ under the Town Planning Act; and thus, confirming his opinion in the judgment.

8. The grievance of the appellants appears to be only as against the alleged finding that the land in question has been declared as a ‘’residential zone’’. We are, however, of the view that the learned Single Judge need not have considered the question whether the land is a notified ‘’residential zone’’; particularly, when it was impelled only at the stage of Review Petition.

9. We are of the firm opinion that, even without adverting to the question whether the land is a ‘’residential zone’’, the other inputs, which are noticed in the judgment - and which remain unassailed – would justify the contentions against the appellants. We, therefore, leave that contention open; and order that the said observations of the learned Single Judge will not bind any other case in future.

In view of the afore, this appeal is dismissed.