IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 7TH ASHADHA, 1944
RP NO. 530 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 19268/2021 OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/3RD PARTY:
UDUMBUNTHALA MUSLIM JUMA-ATH COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MR. FAISAL KOCHAN, UDUMBUNTHALA (P.O), SOUTH
THRIKARIPUR, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT,
PIN - 671311.
BY ADV JAGAN ABRAHAM M.GEORGE
RESPONDENTS:
1 THAYYIL PURAYIL ABDULLAH
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O. P. MOHAMMED KUNHI, RESIDING AT AL-NOOR,
UDUMBUNTHALA P.O, SOUTH THRIKARIPUR, HOSDURG
TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671311,
THROUGH HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AND
BROTHER T.P.SHADULI, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.
P.MOHAMMED, RESIDING AT FATHIMA VILLA,
VALVAKKAD, SOUTH THRIKARIPUR, KASARAGOD
DISTRICT, PIN - 671311.
2 THRIKARIPUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH
VADAKKE THRIKARIPUR, THRIKARIPUR (PO),
KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671310.
3 THE SECRETARY
THRIKARIPUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VADAKKE
THRIKARIPUR, THRIKARIPUR (PO), KASARAGOD
DISTRICT, PIN - 671310.
R.P No.530 of 2022 in
W.P.(C) No.19268 of 2021 :2:
4 KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD,
VIP ROAD, KALOOR (P.O), KOCHI, PIN - 682017,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
BY ADVS.
M.SASINDRAN
JAMSHEED HAFIZ
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 28.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
R.P No.530 of 2022 in
W.P.(C) No.19268 of 2021 :3:
ORDER
Dated this the 28th day of June, 2022 The Review Petitioner was not a party to W.P(C) No.19268 of 2021. The Review Pettitioner seeks to recall the judgment dated 13.12.2021 in W.P(C) No.19268 of 2021.
2. The writ petition was filed by the 1 st respondent seeking to quash Ext.P7 in so far as it insists for production of sketch from the Taluk Surveyor for consideration of application for Building Permit. The 1 st respondent was aggrieved by non-issuance of Building Permit.
3. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 13.12.2021, it was noted that according to the Wakf Board, they do not have any claim over the property and the property was a subject matter of sale by Income Tax authorities. Taking into consideration the counter affidavit filed by the Wakf Board in which the Wakf Board has unequivocally stated that they do not have right over the R.P No.530 of 2022 in W.P.(C) No.19268 of 2021 :4: property and they have no objection in petitioner being granted Building Permit, the writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge.
4. The review petitioner has approached this Court seeking to recall the judgment. According to the review petitioner, the 1st respondent is claiming his title over the property on the basis of a Sale Certificate issued in the year 1974 by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kasaragod at the instance of the Department of Income Tax, Government of India. The review petitioner submits that there is no such Sale Certificate. The Revenue Divisional Officer of the State Government could not have issued a Sale Certificate at the instance of the Department of Income Tax Department, Government of India, in view of the Income Tax Rules prevailing at that time. The review petitioner further pointed out that a page of the alleged Sale Certificate has been printed by an Inkjet printer. In the year 1974, Inkjet Printing technology did not exist. Therefore, it is only a fraudulent document.
R.P No.530 of 2022 in W.P.(C) No.19268 of 2021 :5:
5. The review petitioner stated that when the very document/Sale Certificate is a fraudulent and non-existing Sale Certificate, this Court should not have granted any relief to the 1st respondent/writ petitioner.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner, the counsel for the 1 st respondent and the respective Standing Counsel for respondents 2 to 4.
7. This Court disposed of the writ petition on 13.12.2021 based on the statement made by the Wakf Board that the property in question was removed from the Wakf Register and in its place, another property subsequently transferred by the wife of the purchaser, has been substituted. The Wakf Board has stated that they have no objection in granting Building Permit to the 1 st respondent. It is solely based on the statement/counter affidavit filed by the Wakf Board that the writ petition has been disposed of.
8. The concern of the review petitioner is that the judgment of this Court in W.P(C) No.19268 of 2021 will be now treated as a judicial declaration on the title of property of R.P No.530 of 2022 in W.P.(C) No.19268 of 2021 :6: the petitioner. The review petitioner has already moved the competent court for protecting the wakf property. Therefore, the judgment in W.P(C) No.19268 of 2021 in which the review petitioner is not a party, would adversely affect their claim.
9. This Court do not find any merit in such contention. In the judgment in W.P(C) No.19268 of 2021, this Court has not considered the validity of the Sale Certificate. The judgment was made solely on the basis of the stand taken by the Wakf Board. This Court do not find any error apparent on the judgment.
10. Accordingly, the request to review the judgment is declined. However, it is made clear that the judgment dated 13.12.2021 in W.P(C) No.19268 of 2021 may not be taken as one pronouncing anything on merits as regards the validity or otherwise of the Sale Certificate in question.
Review petition is dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE smm/29.06.2022 R.P No.530 of 2022 in W.P.(C) No.19268 of 2021 :7: APPENDIX OF RP 530/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure I THE TRUE COPY OF PLAINT IN O.S.NO.60/2020 ON THE FILES OF WAKF TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE.
Annexure II THE TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE SECRETARY OF UDUMBUNTHALA JUMAAT MOSQUE COMMITTEE IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY FROM THE OFFICE OF TAHSILDAR, HOSDURG.
Annexure III THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE SECRETARY OF UDUMBUNTHALA JUMAAT MOSQUE COMMITTEE IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY TOGETHER WITH ANOTHER PERSON BEFORE THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE WAKF BOARD.