Kerala High Court
Udumbunthala Muslim Juma-Ath ... vs Thayyil Purayil Abdullah on 28 June, 2022
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
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
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
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
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.
