IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 4650 of 2008(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M.N.PARTHASARATHY AGED 62 YEARS,S/O.LATE M.K.NEELAKANTAN, MANAGING PARTNER, MOOTHEDATHU CORPORATION MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BEPIN VIJAYAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. MUVATTUPUZHA MUNCIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MUNCIPAL OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY MUVATTUPUZHA MUNCIPALITY MUNCIPAL OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICTA. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER MUVATTUPUZHA ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, MUVATUPUZHA TALUK ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 6. THE VILLAGE OFFICER MARADY VILLAGE OFFICE MUVATUPUZHA TALUK ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 7. M.P.SHIJU,S/O.LATE M.N.PURUSHOTHAMAN MARADY VILLAGE OFFICE MUVATUPUZHA TALUK ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 8. M.P.SHEEJA,W/O. SALIM KALATHIL KALATHIL VEEDU, BHADANY LANE, VAZHAPILLY MUDAVOOR P.O.,MUVATTUPUZHA 686 669, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 9. A.L.SHANTHA, W/O.LATE M.N.PURUSHOTHAMAN MARADY VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY G.P. SRI.MUHAMMED ANZAR BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI SRI.T.R.ASWAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 4650 of 2008 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of February , 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner and the party respondents in this Writ Petition are members of a family by name' Moothedathu” and the grievance of the petitioner, who is paternal uncle of respondents 7 and 8 and the brother in law of respondent 9, is that the Municipality has issued Ext.P12 ownership certificate and the Village Officer has issued Ext.P13 possession certificate indicating that the ownership and possession of the building having door numbers XII/800, 801, 802 and 803 of the Muvattupuzha Municipality is with the respondent and that the possession over the 9 cents and 561 Sq. Links of land upon which the buildings are situated is with the respondents 7 and 8. 2. I have heard the submissions of Sri.Bepin Vijayan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.V.M.Kurian, the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality and Sri.B.Krishnamani, the WPC No.4650/2008 2 learned counsel for the party respondents. 3. Sri.Bepin Vijayan submits that Exts.P12 and P13 certificates have been issued by the Municipality and the Village Officer without holding proper enquiry and they are against the documents which deal with ownership and legal possession over the properties. Rooms came to be assessed in favour of the petitioner only because, the petitioner's brother at that time was the managing partner of the partnership firm by name 'Moothedathu Corporation'. In the assessment books of the local authority also it was clearly described that M.N.Purushothaman (father of 7 and 8th respondents) is the managing partner of the partnership firm. 4. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the party respondents producing various documents. It is alleged that the petitioner has suppressed vital documents. Sri.V.M.Kurian, the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality would submit that as far as the Municipality is concerned, the Municipality issued possession and ownership certificates on the basis of the entries in its property tax register. Going by the property tax register, Sri.M.N.Purushothaman is owner of the building in his WPC No.4650/2008 3 own name and Sri.Kurian referred to Ext.P12 certificate in that regard. The Standing Counsel also referred to Ext.P19 and submitted that if documents called for under Ext.P19 are produced by the petitioner, the Municipality will be prepared to consider the petitioner's request for effecting mutation. 5. Even though it cannot be said that the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are totally unattractive, I am of the view that this court under Article 226 of the Constitution will not be justified in resolving disputes between the parties which is essentially a civil dispute regarding ownership and possession of immovable properties. It is seen from the counter affidavit filed by the party respondents that some suits are already pending before the civil court. I dispose of this writ petition relegating the petitioner to the Civil Court with an observation that Exts.P12 and P13 will be subject to any decision to be taken by the civil court in the civil litigation in which the petitioner and the 4th respondent are parties. In the meanwhile, since it is indicated in Ext.P19 that Appeal No.197/2007 filed by the petitioner is pending before the 2nd respondent, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to WPC No.4650/2008 4 take up that appeal and dispose of the same in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner and the party respondents. If the 2nd respondent feels that the appeal is not a proper one, it is open to the 2nd respondent to reject the appeal under communication to the petitioner. Similarly, since Ext.P15 complaint is apparently pending before the 5th respondent Tahsildar, there will be a direction to the 5th respondent to enquire into Ext.P15 and to take decision on the same after hearing the petitioner and the party respondents. The Municipality and the Tahsildar will comply with the directions of this judgment which are addressed to them at the earliest and at any rate within six weeks of receiving a copy of this judgment. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. dpk