Disposed

Mahmood v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Jul 2022WP(C)/9864/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition concerning land partition, the Court directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to consider the petitioner's representation seeking release of his share of land that was wrongly attached in proceedings between other parties.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within three months.

Mahmood Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 9864 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER/S:

¶6

MAHMOOD
AGED 48 YEARS
SON OF NOOHU KANNU, T.F.HOUSE, AMBALATHUMOOLA, CHOWARA
P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ., PIN - 695501
BY ADVS.
K.JAGADEESH
V.RENJU

¶7

RESPONDENT/S:

¶8

1STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶9

2REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
O/O THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
CIVIL STATION, KUDAPANAKKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN
- 695043
3HYSANTH LOUIS
AGED 54 YEARS
SON OF DAMIEN LOUIS , SACRED HEART HOUSE,
AMBALATHUMOOLA, KOTTUKAL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA ,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695121
4PETER JOHN LOUIS
AGED 49 YEARS
SON OF DAMIEN LOUIS, SACRED HEART HOUSE,
AMBALATHUMOOLA, KOTTUKAL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695121

¶10

OTHER PRESENT:

¶11

GP P.S.APPU

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C) NO. 9864 OF 2022

¶14

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

Dated this the 19^th day of July, 2022

¶17

The petitioner is the C party in M.C No.30 of 1970 pending on the files of the Executive Magistrate Thiruvananthapuram. According to the petitioner, the dispute between A party and B party regarding possession over a parcel of land had resulted in Ext. P1 order of attachment by the Executive Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of the total extent of 25 acres and 12 cents, the C party is entitled to 1/3rd share. In Section 143 Cr.P.C proceedings, the Executive Magistrate attached the entire property, including the property set apart for the C party, although the dispute was only between the A and B parties. Pointing out this mistake and seeking release of the undisputed portion belonging to the C party, petitioner has submitted Ext.P5 representation before the 2^nd respondent.

¶18

WP(C) NO. 9864 OF 2022

¶19

¶20

The grievance is that, despite repeated request, the 2^nd respondent is not considering Ext.P5

¶21

representation and hence there may be a direction in Ext.P5.

¶22

Considering the limited relief sought, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent to consider Ext.P5 and pass appropriate orders thereon. The decision, as directed above, shall be taken within three months, after affording an opportunity to hearing to the petitioner and other interested parties. To effectuate proper consideration of the representation, the petitioner shall produce a copy of this writ petition along with certified copy of the judgment.

¶23

Sd/V.G ARUN JUDGE

¶24

¶25

WP(C) NO. 9864 OF 2022

¶26

¶27

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9864/2022

¶28

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶29

Exhibit P1TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE
EXECUTIVE FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,
TRIVANDRUM IN M.C.NO.30 OF 1970 DATED 12-
8-1970
Exhibit.P2TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE
EXECUTIVE FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,
TRIVANDRUM DATED 17-8-1973
Exhibit.P3TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PLAINT IN
O,S,NO.227 OF 2013 OF THE MUNSIFFS COURT,
NEYYATTINKARA DATED 15-3-2013.
Exhibit.P4TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED
BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS BEFORE THE
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 13-12-2017.
Exhibit.P5TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER ,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 1-12-2021.

Mahmood v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahmood v. State of Kerala

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

Binu L S Vs Travancore Devaswom Board - Tdb

Ashok Kumar Vs State of Kerala

S.Neema Vs State of Kerala

G.Vijayakumar Vs Kerala State Electricity Board - Kseb

Surabhi Earth Movers Vs the General Manager

Surabhi Earth Movers Vs the General Manager