Muhammadali K.P vs The District Collector
2024 Latest Caselaw 8854 Ker

Kerala High Court

Muhammadali K.P vs The District Collector on 27 March, 2024

Author: T.R.Ravi

Bench: T.R.Ravi

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
    WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1946
                       WP(C) NO. 11550 OF 2024


PETITIONER:

          MUHAMMADALI K.P.
          AGED 52 YEARS, S/O ABDULKHADAR P.P
          KARIYIL PUDIYAPURAYIL, KOTTURVAYAL,
          SREEKANDAPURAM P.O.,
          KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN- 670 631.
          NOW RESIDING AT C/O V. THANSIR,
          S.M BAR, XXV/76, KOTTUR DESOM,
          SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT,
          PIN - 670631

          BY ADVS.
          RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY
          MAYA C.P.
          K.V.ANTONY
          A.P.BEELAMMA
          VIJINA K.
          ARUL MURALIDHARAN



RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
          KANNUR, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
          KANNUR, PIN - 670001

    2     THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
          KANNUR, OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
          KANNUR, PIN - 670001

          SRI.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE, GOVT.PLEADER


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 11550 OF 2024
                                     2



                               T.R. RAVI, J.
                --------------------------------------------
                       W. P. (C). No.11550 of 2024
                 --------------------------------------------
                  Dated this the 27th day of March, 2024

                               JUDGMENT

The prayer in the writ petition is for quashing Ext.P4 and for a

direction to the 1st respondent to issue a possession certificate as

sought for in Ext.P3. The 1 st respondent has by Ext.P4 informed the

petitioner that nothing can be done from their end in the matter since

it is not for the District Collector to certify the ownership of gold

ornaments belonging to the petitioner. I do not find anything wrong

with the order Ext.P4. As far as the ownership of the petitioner is

concerned, admittedly Ext.P2 judgment has held that as long as there

is no better claim established, the property shall enure to the person

from whom possession was taken. Since possession was taken from

the petitioner, he has been put in possession of the gold ornaments

also.

The writ petition is closed based on the declaration in Ext.P2

judgment.

Sd/--/-

T.R. RAVI JUDGE Pn WP(C) NO. 11550 OF 2024

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11550/2024

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24-6-2008 IN CRL.M.C. NO. 3152/2006 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT

Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8-1-2018 IN CRL.R.P. NO. 1623/2016 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT

Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 29-2-2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1 ST RESPONDENT

Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION IN DCKNR/3663/2024-A6 DATED 15-3-2024 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT