IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 29TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 419 of 2011(B) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- MAIMOONA, AGED 49 YEARS, D/O.LATE HASSANAR BYARI AND LATE PATHUMMA, RESIDING AT THOTTI, IN KEEKKAN VILLAGE OF HOSDURG TALUK, P.O.KEEKKAN. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. PALLIKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, P.O. PALLIKKARA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, 671 318. 2. KUNHAMU, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.LATE HASSANAR BYARI AND LATE PATHUMMA, RESIDING AT THOTTI, IN KEEKKAN VILLAGE OF HOSDURG TALUK, P.O.KEEKKAN, 670 315. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 419 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner and the second respondent are the legal heirs of late Hassanar Byari. The second respondent has obtained a building permit from the first respondent to effect construction in the property that belonged to the late Hassanar Byari having an extent of 1.44 Acres comprised in Re-survey No.9/6 of Keekkan Village. The contention of the petitioner is that being a legal heir of late Hassanar Byari he is having right over 1/8th share in the property and the second respondent is having right only over 7/8th share in the said property. In fact, raising such contentions, the petitioner has instituted O.S NO.334/2010 before the Munsiff Court, Hosdurg and he had obtained an interim injunction restraining the second respondent from carrying any construction in the said property. It is thereafter that this writ petition has been filed mainly with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent to cancel the building permit granted to the second respondent. Even, according to the WPC.419/2011 : 2 : petitioner, the second respondent is having 7/8th share on the property in dispute and the extent of the property in question is 1.44 Acres. That apart, evidently in O.S No.334/2010 an interim injunction was issued restraining the second respondent herein from any construction thereon. In fact, O.S No.334/2010 is a suit for partition. Obviously, the interim injunction granted in O.S.No.334/2010 would safeguard the undivided right of the petitioner over the property in question. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that the validity of Ext.P2 in the circumstances, would depend upon the outcome of the suit. In this peculiar circumstances, I do not think that the petitioner is justified in seeking the reliefs sought for in this writ petition at this stage. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that it will be open to the petitioner to take appropriate steps in the matter subject to the outcome of O.S No.334/2010 on the file of Munsiff Court, Hosdurg. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge