High Court Kerala High Court

K.M.Irshad Hussain vs State Of Kerala on 29 June, 2007

Kerala High Court
K.M.Irshad Hussain vs State Of Kerala on 29 June, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 19937 of 2007(W)


1. K.M.IRSHAD HUSSAIN,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. K.M.SAHIB HUSSAIN,
3. K.M.NAUSHAD HUSSAIN,
4. K.K.MUHAMMED,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. TAHSILDAR,

3. LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER,

4. NASSER AHMED SIDIQUE,S/O.ABDUL KHADER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.HARILAL

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :29/06/2007

 O R D E R
                               S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

                       ---------------------------------

                        W.P.(C)NO.19937 OF 2007

                     -----------------------------------

             DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF JUNE, 2007


                                   JUDGMENT

This writ petition relates to rival claims for mutation between the

petitioners on the one hand and the 4th respondent on the other. The

petitioners now apprehend that the respondents are likely to effect

mutation of the subject property in the name of the 4th respondent.

The petitioners have filed Ext.P19 objections in this regard before the

2nd respondent. For the present, the petitioners would be satisfied with

a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate

orders on Ext.P19 expeditiously. The petitioners further submit that

Ext.P19 objections may be considered while considering the revision

filed by the 4th respondent which was directed to be considered as per

Ext.P18 judgment.

2. Having heard the learned Government pleader and the

learned counsel for the petitioner, I direct that while passing orders in

implementation of Ext.P18 judgment on Ext.P12 application referred to

therein the 2nd respondent shall consider Ext.P19 objections filed by

the petitioners also after affording an opportunity to being heard to the

petitioners as also the 4th respondent as expeditiously as possible. I

W.P.(c)No.19937/07 2

make it clear that without hearing the petitioners and passing a

considered order the matter shall not be finalised.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

Acd