IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2009 / 23RD SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22850 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ARIF AZEEZ, S/O.M.M.ABDUL AZEEZ, MANADATH, ZAINA GARDEN, AMBUNADU, EDATHALA P.O., ALUVA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ SRI.SAJU.S.A RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. REVENUE VIGILANCE OFFICER, CENTRAL ZONE, OFFICE OF THE DEPTY. COLLECTOR, MINI CIVIL STATION, THRIPPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM. 2. P.A.ANWAR, PUTHUPARA HOUSE, UPARICHIRA PARAMBU, THOTTUMUGHAM P.O., ALUVA. BY GP SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).22850/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 14th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner claims to be the owner of 47 cents of land in Block No.33 in R.S.No.73/3 of Aluva East Village. 2nd respondent, his brother and sister, according to the petitioner, tried to encroach into the said property. Thereafter, they filed a Suit as O.S.No.175/2006 before the Munsiff Court, Aluva, and they filed an application for injunction against the petitioner. No order has been passed so far. 2. In the meanwhile, 2nd respondent filed a complaint before the District Collector raising allegation against the Revenue authorities who effected mutation pursuant to the assignment in favour of the petitioner. It seems that the District Collector closed the file. Subsequently, another complaint was filed before the Superintendent of police, vigilance and anti corruption bureau, Ernakulam. That was sent to the registration authorities. Though the petitioner approached this Court challenging the said notice, Ext.P4, W.P.(C).22850/09 2 writ petition was dismissed. 3. 2nd respondent then preferred a complaint before the Revenue Vigilance Officer, Central Zone, alleging that the petitioner has manipulated and fabricated the revenue records in the course of mutation in his name. Ext.P5 notice has been issued and the petitioner challenges the same. 4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P5 is an abuse of process of law. After all, there is a Suit now pending before the Civil Court, wherein the property belonging to the petitioner is the plaint schedule property. The allegations regarding improper action in the course of mutation effected under the Transfer of registry Rules in favour of the petitioner is one of the matters that could be considered by the Civil Court and there is no reason for a parallel enquiry, it is contended. Apparently, Ext.P5 is third attempt on the part of the 2nd respondent in filing a complaint against the petitioner alleging fabrication of the revenue records. Petitioner may therefore, W.P.(C).22850/09 3 specifically ask for the details on the basis of which an enquiry is proposed to be conducted by the 1st respondent. This shall be done within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On receipt of the said request, 1st respondent shall forward a copy of the complaint to the petitioner and also give reasons as to why the complaint is sought to be enquired into. Petitioner may file his objections and the 1st respondent shall pass a reasoned order giving reasons as to why he thinks it is necessary to proceed further with the complaint. Enquiry shall be proceeded with only thereafter. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs