Court dismissed review petition holding no error apparent on face of record as statutory remedy exists. However, status quo on property possession maintained for three months to enable petitioner to approach Wakf Tribunal.
Status quo on possession of property maintained for three months pending statutory remedy.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
MONDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2011 / 13TH ASHADHA 1933
R. P. No. 487 of 2011()
--------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.16850/2011 Dated 23/06/2011
REVIEW PETITIONER : WRIT PETITIONER
K.R.B.ISMAIL, S/O.A.MOOSA, AGED 59 YEARS,
'KIRUBOIGOTHI', BADA VILLAGE,
MINICOY ISLAND, UT OF LAKSHADWEEP-682559.
BY ADV. MR. SHYAM PADMAN
MR. A.RANJITH NARAYANAN
RESPONDENTS:
BY STANDING COUNSEL MR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
R.P No . 487 of 2011 in W.P(C) No. 16850 of 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 04th July , 2011
ORDER
This Review Petition has been filed by the writ petitioner with a prayer to review the verdict passed by this Court on 23.06.2011 in W.P. (C) No. 16850 of 2011, whereby interference was declined, relegating the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy available, particularly, under Section 83 (9) of the Wakf Act. Many a ground has been raised in the review petition, but the fact that the petitioner is having alternate remedy is not disputed, in view of the statutory prescriptions. In the said circumstances, obviously there is “no error apparent on the face of the record”, so as to invoke the power of review, more so, in view of the law declared by the Apex Court on the point in Meera Bhanja Vs. Nirmala Kumar Choudhari (AIR 1995 SC 455).
R P. (C) No. 487 of 2011
: 2 :
the Lacadice Minicoy and Amindivi Islands (Civil Courts) Regulation, 1965, submits that, the Monsoon period i.e. up to 15th September has to be be excluded from the period of limitation and the statutory remedy can be availed only accordingly.
Sd/
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE
kmd
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the review petition should be allowed given the existence of statutory alternate remedies.
Whether the period of limitation should be excluded during the monsoon season to facilitate approaching the Wakf Tribunal.
Whether status quo on property possession should be maintained pending statutory remedy.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Meera Bhanja Vs. Nirmala Kumar ChoudhariRelied on¶27
Meera Bhanja Vs. Nirmala Kumar Choudhari (AIR 1995 SC 455) · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
K.R.B. Ismail
Masjid Administration and Sullamusbiyam Madrasa Committee
Lakshadweep State Wakf Board
F.G. Hussain Maulavi
P.R. Ramachandran Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
