High Court Kerala High Court

Zakkir Hussain vs The Tahsildar on 4 June, 2009

Kerala High Court
Zakkir Hussain vs The Tahsildar on 4 June, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 15386 of 2009(O)


1. ZAKKIR HUSSAIN,S/O.MOHAMMED SHAFI,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE TAHSILDAR,NEYYATTINKARA TALUK,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,KOTTUKAL VILLAGE,

3. THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

4. SALIM,S/O.ABDUL KARIM,AGED 39,

5. TAHIRA BEEVI,D/O.SAFIA BEEVI,AGED 32,

6. SUBAIDA BEEVI,D/O.SAFIA BEEVI,AGED 48,

7. NAZEER,S/O.ABDUL KAREEM,AGED 40,

8. BEENA BEEVI,D/O.SAFIA BEEVI,AGED 44,

9. SAIFUDEEN,S/O.ABDUL KAREEM,AGED 46,

10. LATHEEF,S/O.ABDUL KAREEM,AGED 35,

11. RAMLABEEVI,D/O.SAFIA BEEVI,AGED 32,

12. ABDUL SALAM,S/O.MEERA SAHIB,AGED 50,

13. SHAMEEM,S/O.ABDUL SALAM,AGED 19,

14. SHAHANA,D/O.ABDUL SALAM,AGED 14,

15. SHAN,S/O.ABDUL SALAM,AGED 8,

16. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.VINOD J.DEV

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

 Dated :04/06/2009

 O R D E R
                   S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
                  -----------------------------------
                  W.P.(C).No.15386 of 2009 - O
                   ---------------------------------
               Dated this the 4th day of June, 2009

                          J U D G M E N T

This writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

“i) To call for the records leading to the passing of

Ext.P1 and quash the same by issuing a writ of

certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or

direction.

ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ,

order or direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to comply

with the directions in Ext.P3 and issue mutation in

respect of property comprised in Sy.No.2/1-149 of

Kottukal Viullage.

iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ,

order or direction, directing 3rd respondent to provide

electric connection to Building No.VII/47 of

Balaramapuram Grama Panchayath.

iv) To issue appropriate direction or orders directing

the learned II Munsiff, Neyyattinkara to initiate

proceedings for perjury against 4th respondent in

respect of Ext.P1 and further direct 16th respondent to

register criminal case against 4th respondent for forgery

in respect of Ext.P10.”

W.P.(C).No.15386 of 2009 – O

2

2. Petitioner claims title and possession of a shop room

comprised in one cent of property in Kottukal Village. Previously,

he had approached this Court with a writ petition seeking a writ,

order or direction against the Sub Registrar of Balaramapuram,

Tahsildar of Neyyattinkara, Village Officer of Koottukal Village,

Secretary of Balaramapuram Grama Panchayath and one Thahira

Beevi, impleading them as respondents in that petition and the

relief sought for was with respect to an application moved for

mutation of the above property in his name. This Court disposed

that writ petition by Ext.P3 judgment directing 2nd and 3rd

respondents in that writ petition, Tahsildar Neyyattinkar and

Village Officer, Kottukal Village respectively, to consider and pass

appropriate orders on the application moved by the petitioner for

mutation of the property in his name. Now the present writ

petition is filed advancing a case that on account of a suit filed by

another person who was not a party in the previous writ petition,

proceedings relating to Ext.P5 have been stalled and, further, the

suit itself is an abuse of process of court. Ext.P1 is the copy of

the plaint in the suit filed by one Salim and it is seen that

W.P.(C).No.15386 of 2009 – O

3

petitioner is the 1st defendant in that suit. Whatever contentions

the petitioner has against the maintainability and also merit of

Ext.P1 plaint, being a party in the suit, he can advance before the

concerned court. This Court in exercise of a supervisory

jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot

examine whether the suit is an abuse of process of court.

The writ petition is devoid of any merit and it is dismissed.

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
JUDGE.

bkn/-