Petitioner sought stay on civil suit trial pending disposal of a writ petition (WP(C) No.1073 of 2017). Court dismissed petitions as infructuous because the underlying writ petition had already been finally disposed of by the same court on Feb 8, 2018.
Both Original Petitions (Civil)Nos. 253 and 269 of 2018 dismissed as infructuous.
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 ALEXANDER THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 3RD PHALGUNA, 1939
OP(C).No. 253 of 2018
OS.NO. 105/2011 of MUNSIFF'S COURT, THALIPARAMBA
--------
PETITIONER(S)/PLAINTIFF:
KAKKOTAKATH VALAPPILEPURAYIL SADIQUE, S/O. AHMED HAJI ALIAS MAMMU HAJI, AGED 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT UNDAPPARAMBU, TALIPARAMBA AMSOM DESOM, P.O.TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. PIN 670141.
BY ADV.SRI.R.SURENDRAN
RESPONDENT(S)/DEFENDANTS NO.1 TO 3:-:
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR OF KANNUR DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE, KANNUR-670002.
2. O.P.BALAKRISHNAN,
AGE & FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, NEAR KAPPOTHKAVU, ANCHAMPEEDIKA, KALLIASSERI VILLAGE, P.O.KALLIASSERI, KANNUR DISTRICT. PIN 670562.
3. C.GIRIJA, W/O.O.P.BALAKRISHNAN NEAR KAPPOTHKAVU, ANCHAMPEEDIKA, KALLIASSERI VILLAGE, P.O.KALLIASSERI, KANNUR DISTRICT. PIN 670562.
R1 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.I.JOHNSON
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-02-2018, ALONG WITH OP(C)NO.269/2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
TS
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
---------------------------------------O.P.(C) Nos.253 & 269 of 2018
Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2018
JUDGMENT
The main prayer in O.P.(C) 253 of 2018 is as follows :
The main prayer in O.P.(C) 269 of 2018 is as follows :
that this Court has already finally disposed of W.P.(C) No.1073 of 2017 on 8.2.2018. The said judgment dated 8.2.2018 rendered by this Court in W.P.(C) No.1073 of 2017 reads as follows :
“The petitioners approached this Court challenging an order of the District Collector, Kannur. This order was passed pursuant to the directions of this Court in W.P.(C).No.9094/2016. The above writ petition was filed by the 5th respondent. The 5th respondent approached this Court alleging that the property belonging to him has been inadvertently distributed by the State pursuant to ceiling proceedings. This Court directed the District Collector to take up his complaint and take appropriate decision. Thereafter, the District Collector after conducting an enquiry through the revenue officials and relying upon the report of the Tahsildar, came to a conclusion that the land was inadvertently included as part of ceiling proceedings of the declarant namely Kannan. It was observed that, based on the sketch prepared in Taluk Land Board proceedings, the land in question cannot form part in any of the ceiling proceedings. By the time, the land has been distributed among different beneficiaries, who are the petitioners herein. According to the petitioners, they have constructed residential buildings in the land and they have to be protected. By the impugned order, the District Collector ordered revocation of the deed executed in favour of the beneficiaries. The State distributed the land as though it was an excess land surrendered by the declarant. As seen from the impugned order, this land is not part of the surrendered land.
2. The petitioners are having a case that they were not heard in the
: :2::
OPC Nos.253 & 269/18
matter. But as seen from the impugned order, they were heard and notices were issued to them and only few of them have chosen to appear.
3. The District Collector only ordered revocation of the deed executed in favour of the petitioners and ordered that they should be given the land which was found excess from the declarant.
That be so, it cannot be said that the petitioners are deprived of any land on account of the proceedings. However, the question looms large in this case whether the petitioners are entitled for the improvement made in the land. In this writ petition, the petitioners have not canvassed any relief on this ground. Therefore, the petitioners are free to work out their remedy in appropriate forum. Leaving open the issue as above, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.”
In view of the fact that this Court had already rendered final
judgment on 8.2.2018 in W.P.(C) 1073 of 2017, the prayers in both the
abovesaid O.P.(C) has become infructuous. Accordingly, both the
Original Petitions (Civil) will stand dismissed as infructuous.
ALEXANDER THOMAS
JUDGE
Sd/-
csl
1 issue framed by the court
Whether two original civil petitions seeking stay on trial based on a pending writ petition should be maintained when that writ petition has already been finally disposed of.
KAKKOTAKATH VALAPPILEPURAYIL SADIQUE
STATE OF KERALA
O.P.BALAKRISHNAN
C.GIRIJA
ALEXANDER THOMAS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
