Allowed

Muhammed Kurikkal v. Musthaffa Kurikkal & Others

Kerala HC22 Sept 2011RP/669/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme High Court of Kerala recalled a prior order directing authorities to finalize property measurements via a writ petition. The Court held that since a civil suit on the property's title and partition is pending, any administrative action via the writ could tilt the balance. Both review petitions were allowed, but the writ petition was dismissed without prejudice to civil suit rights.

What did the court decide?

Recall of order dated 23/06/2011; Writ Petition dismissed without prejudice; Review petitions allowed.

Muhammed Kurikkal Vs Musthaffa Kurikkal & Others — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2011 / 31ST BHADRA 1933

¶5

RP.No. 669 of 2011(I)

¶6

--------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.16884/2011 Dated 23/06/2011 ....................

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER/NOT A PARTY TO THE WRIT PETITION:

¶8

¶9

MUHAMMED KURIKKAL, S/O.AHAMMED KURIKKAT, PAYAMBALAM AMSOM-DESOM, ERANADU TALUK, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.R.MANOJ

¶11

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER IN THE WRIT PETITION:

¶12

¶13

MUSTHAFFA KURIKKAL, S/O.MANCHERI AHAMMED KURIKKAT, PAYYANADU, ERANADU TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶14

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM - 676505.

¶15

THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, ERANAD TALUK, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM - 676121.

¶16

THE RE-SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, MINI CIVIL STATION, MANJERI P.O., MALAPPURAM - 676121.

¶17

R1 BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR

¶18

R2 TO R4 BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER, SRI.M.R. SABU.

¶19

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/09/2011, ALONG WITH RP NO. 670 OF 2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

RP.No. 669 of 2011(I)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

REVIEW PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶23

ANNEXURE A1 : TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS.NO.31 OF 2000 OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT, MANCHERI DATED 25.02.2000.

¶24

ANNEXURE A2 : TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS BEFORE THE SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT IN OS NO.31/2000.

¶25

ANNEXURE A3 : TRUE COPY OF THE ISSUES FRAMED IN OS NO.31 OF 2000 OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT, MANJERI DATED 14.10.2010.

¶26

ANNEXURE A4 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE REVIEW PETITIONER TO THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PAYYANADU DATED 05.08.2011.

¶27

ANNEXURE A5(A) : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE REVIEW PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESURVEY SUPERINTENDENT DATED 04.04.2011.

¶28

ANNEXURE A5(B) : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE REVIEW PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESURVEY SUPERINTENDENT DATED 05.08.2011.

¶29

/TRUE COPY/

¶30

PA TO JUDGE

¶31

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON,J

¶32

- - - - R.P. Nos.669 and 670 of 2011 IN W.P.(C) No. 16884 of 2011

¶33

- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22^nd day of September, 2011

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

These review petitions have been filed by the petitioners after getting 'leave' of this Court, for the reason that they were not made parties to the writ petition and are stated as seriously aggrieved of the consequences resulted, though no adjudication has been made on merits, but for directing the concerned authorities to consider the application preferred by the writ petitioner and have it finalised accordingly, with regard to the fixation of boundaries after effecting necessary measurement.

¶36

When the matter came up for admission, the writ petitioner only pressed for a consideration and disposal of Ext.P3 representation at an early date. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, without entering into the merits of the case, directing the 2^nd respondent to forward the application preferred by the writ petitioner, to the 3^rd respondent, to have it considered with regard to the measurement of the property in question and

¶37

R.P.Nos.669 and 670 of 2011

¶38

-:2:-

¶39

to finalise the matter in the manner as specified therein, within the time specified.

¶40

The case of the review petitioners is that much

¶41

suppression of material facts has been made by the writ petitioner; especially with regard to the pendency of the proceedings before the concerned Civil Court. It is stated that the property with regard to which measurement and fixation of boundary sought for as per Ext.P3 representation has been allegedly secured by virtue of a Gift Deed, the genuineness of which itself is disputed. It is stated that the review petitioners are parties to the pending Civil Suit and that, a counter claim has been filed in respect of the property, forming subject matter of partition in the suit. Since the title itself is in dispute, the Writ Petitioner, making use of the direction to finalise the representation, is proceeding with further steps with the connivance of the concerned respondents, to secure the benefits in an indirect manner which ought not have been granted or obtained by him or even aspired directly.

¶42

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ

¶43

petitioner as well.

¶44

R.P.Nos.669 and 670 of 2011

¶45

-:3:-

¶46

After considering the rival pleadings and prayers

¶47

and also hearing the submissions on behalf of the parties concerned, this Court finds that, the issue is pending consideration before the Civil Court and that any step to be taken, pursuant to the verdict passed by this Court in the writ petition, is likely to tilt the balance in respect of the proceedings before the Civil Court.

¶48

In the above circumstance, the verdict already passed by this Court on 23.06.2011, is liable to be recalled. It is ordered accordingly. The writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner is dismissed, however without prejudice to the rights and liberties to the parties concerned to pursue the matter before the Civil Court. It is made clear that this Court has not made any opinion with regard to the merits or as to the alleged suppression of materials facts .

¶49

Both the Review Petitions are allowed. No costs.

¶50

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

¶51

ttb

Muhammed Kurikkal v. Musthaffa Kurikkal & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Kurikkal v. Musthaffa Kurikkal & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sajitha & Others Vs Union of India & Another

Regent Garden Apartments Owner'S Associa Vs the Commercial Tax Officer,Commercialt a

Firoz Babu.E Vs District Collector

K.a.Kunjumoideen & Another Vs Ziavudeen

Sunny Paul.P Vs District Collector Ernakulam

The Tsr.Corpn.Contractors Association Vs State of Kerala