Disposed

Puthucode Juma-Ath Committee v. S. Muhammed Hussain

Kerala HC14 Aug 2013WA/2048/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ appeal concerning a Wakf property and Juma-ath dispute, the High Court held that since the underlying Original Petition (Crl.) 1649/2012 had been disposed of and the subject matter resolved, the two appellate writ petitions were devoid of any remaining question for consideration.

What did the court decide?

Both writ appeals (WA Nos. 2048/2012 & 76/2013) were disposed of with observations finding the appeals infructuous as the underlying order had reached finality.

Puthucode Juma-Ath Committee Vs S. Muhammed Hussain — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/23RD SRAVANA, 1935

¶5

WA.No. 2048 of 2012 () IN OP(Crl.).1649/2012 ----------------------------------------------

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP(Crl.) 1649/2012 06-09-2012

¶7

APPELLANT/APPELLANT(ADDITIONAL 4TH RESPONDENT):

¶8

PUTHUCODE JUMA-ATH COMMITTEE PUTHUCODE, PALAKKAD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY M.M.BASHEER.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF

¶10

RESPONDENT/(PETITIONER) :

¶11

1. S. MOHAMMED HUSSAN S/O. LAGTE P.V.SYED MUHAMMED, DARUSSALAM HOUSE THEKKEPOTTA P.O., PUTHUKODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT (PRESIDENT, PUTHERIPPADAM SUNNI JUMA-ATH THEKKEPOTTA P.O., PALAKKAD).

¶12

2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE), PALAKKAD-678001.

¶13

3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD NEAR JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, KALOOR, COCHIN-682017.

¶14

4. M.A.SAINULABDEEN S/O. M.C.ABDUL RAHMAN, KARYAKUNNU, PUTHUKODE VILLAGE PALAKKAD.

¶15

R1 BY ADV. SRI.R.RAMADAS R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI P.I DAVIS R3 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.A.A.ABUL HASSAN R4 BY ADV. SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ R4 BY SRI.P.VISWANATHAN

¶16

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-08-2013, ALONG WITH WA. 76/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Manjula Chellur, C.J. & K.Vinod Chandran, J. -----------------------------------------W.A No. 2048 of 2012 & W.A No. 76 of 2013

¶18

-------------------------------------------Dated this, the 14^th day of August, 2013

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

Manjula Chellur,C.J.:

¶21

The entire dispute revolves around the

¶22

Putherippadam Sunni Juma-ath and the Wakf property connected to the said Juma-ath. One Mr. Mohammed Hassan approached this Court in O.P(Crl.) 1649/2012 seeking implementation of the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, dated 19.5.2012. Initially, on 16.8.2012 an interim order came to be passed by the learned Single Judge opining that Wakf Board has to comply with the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and report within two weeks and then the matter was posted after Onam vacation. By order dated 6.9.2012, the learned Judge after referring to the submissions made across the Bar that the administration of Juma-ath has already been handed over as per orders of Sub Divisional Magistrate, except accounts; again passed an order dated 6.9.2012 opining that within one month, accounts for the period when the Board was administering the

¶23

W.A Nos. 2048/2012 &

¶24

76/2013 :2:

¶25

property, had to be handed over or furnished. The interim orders came to be challenged respectively in W.A 2048/2012 and W.A 76/2013. Subsequently, as per the submission of the respondents herein, that apart from handing over the administration of the Juma-ath and the properties of the Wakf to the Secretary, viz, Mr. Mohammed Hassan, accounts were also furnished; on 14.2.2013, O.P 1649/2012 came to be disposed of opining that the interim orders dated 16.8.2012 and 6.9.2012 in the Original Petitions were already complied with. Therefore, the petition itself becomes infructuous and hence, the Original Petition came to be dismissed as infructuous.

¶26

We are informed that another writ petition filed by the appellant herein challenging the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, i.e, Ext.P4 under Section 145(5) of Cr.P.C, i.e, W.P (C) 13087/2012, was also dismissed by Judgment dated 14.2.2013, opining that in the light of moving an application under Section 145(5) of the Code, nothing remains to be considered in the writ petition. However, there is no appeal so far as the judgment dated 14.2.2013 in W.P(c) No. 13087/2012 or final judgment in OP(Crl.) NO. 16491/2012 dtd.14.2.2013.

¶27

As a matter of fact with the disposal of O.P(Crl) 1649/2012 and Writ Petition 13087/2012, the only recourse open

¶28

W.A Nos. 2048/2012 &

¶29

76/2013 :3:

¶30

to the appellant is either to approach the Apex Court challenging judgment dated 12.2.2013 in W.P(C)NO. 13087/2012 or pursue the proceedings under section 145(5) of the Code before the Sub Divisional Magistrate which he has already initiated. Those proceedings will take its own course depending upon the materials placed, in accordance with the procedure contemplated, before the Sub Divisional Magistrate.

¶31

However, at this stage, we are of the opinion, so far as the interim directions and the final decision in O.P(Crl) 1649/2012 has reached finality and nothing remains for us to consider in the two appeals. Accordingly, both the appeals are disposed of with the above observations.

¶32

Sd/Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice

¶33

Sd/K.Vinod Chandran, jma/14.08 Judge.

¶34

//true copy//

¶35

P.A to Judge

Puthucode Juma-Ath Committee v. S. Muhammed Hussain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puthucode Juma-Ath Committee v. S. Muhammed Hussain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.v.James Vs Ashokumar Singh

K.P Joseph Vs State of Kerala

E.Krishnan Namboodiri Vs the Travancore Devaswom Board

C.Lovidasan Vs Sasidharan

Thomas K.L. Vs State of Kerala

Rafeeque Vs Union of India