IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2008 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 15684 of 2008(P) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- T.KHALID, SECRETARY, AYANIKAD IBRAHIM MUSALIAR ISLAMIC EDUCATION AND CHARITABLE SOCIETY, P.B.NO.12/75, A, B, P.O.PAYYOLI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. (S/O. MAMOO, AGED 49 YEARS, VALLIL HOUSE, P.O.PALLITHARA, KOYILANDI TALUK). BY ADV. SRI.K.V.PAVITHRAN, ADV. SRI.JAYANANDAN MADAYI PUTHIYAVEETTIL. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. SECRETARY, PAYYOLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, P.O.PAYYOLI. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL), KOZHIKODE, P.O.KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAYYOLI. 4. SUB INSPECTOR, PAYYOLI POLICE STATION, PAYYOLI. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.V. MANOJ KUMAR, ADV. SRI.C.VALSALAN - R1, SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN - R1, SMT.THUSHARA.V - R1. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.15684/2008-P: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE BYLAW OF THE SOCIETY REGISTRATION NO. 994/2003. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE PLAINT FILED AGAINST THE OWNERS OF THE BUILDING. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE R.2. EXT.P.3.A: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT, DTD. 23/05/08. EXT.P.4.A: COPY OF THE SKETCH PLAN. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. 239/08 IN O.S. 39/2008 OF MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYOLI DTD. 29/05/08. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 15684 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: JUNE 3, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner claims to be the tenant of a building bearing No.PP 12/75, A, B of Payyoli Grama Panchayat, where he is stated to be running a school. According to the petitioner, apprehending that his possession will be disturbed, he had approached the civil court by filing Ext.P2 and obtained Ext.P5 order of injunction against his landlords. This order is dated 29.5.2008. It is stated that despite the order, Payyoli Grama Panchayat, the 1st respondent herein, is attempting to dispossess him from the building and therefore this writ petition has been filed for an order enabling to continue possession of the building and running of the school in the premises. 2. The Panchayat had entered appearance and the learned counsel for the Panchayat submits that the respondents in the suit, who were the landlords of the petitioner, had by document dated 21.4.2008, assigned the property to the Panchayat and that since then the Panchayat is in possession of the building. It is also submitted that subsequently the petitioner had trespassed into the WP(C) 15684 of 2008 2 building and reduced a portion of the building into his possession, despite the fact that the Panchayat had already shifted and located some of its offices in the building in question. It is stated that although the petitioner is aware that the Panchayat is the owner of the property, petitioner has not chosen to implead the Panchayat in the civil suit. According to him, a false case is foisted against the Panchayat to take possession of the building. 3. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, would submit that on the basis of a complaint by the Panchayat, Crime No.260/2008 was registered by the Payyoli Police and that in the course of the investigation, they came to know that it is the petitioner who was in possession of the property. 4. While the petitioner seeks an order enabling his continued running of the school in the premises, from the facts as stated above, it is obvious that what is seriously in dispute is the possession of the building. ]While, on the one hand, petitioner asserts that he is in possession of the building, it is challenged by the Panchayat and the Panchayat would canvass for the position that it is in possession of the building. In fact, the Panchayat has also gone to the extent of saying that it had already shifted some of its offices into the premises in question. Therefore, what WP(C) 15684 of 2008 3 necessarily arises for consideration is the question as to who is in actual possession of the building. 5. In my view, in view of the contradictory claims raised by the respective parties as noticed above, it will not be possible for this court to decide the disputed question of fact, which has to be decided only by an appropriate civil court, based on the materials that are produced by the respective parties. As already noticed, petitioner has already moved the civil court where this issue also arises for consideration. Therefore it is for the petitioner to have the Panchayat also in the party array either by impleading the Panchayat in Ext.P2 or by filing a separate suit for appropriate orders. I do not think that, in the circumstances of this case, it will be proper for this court to pass any order which might affect the rights of one or the other party to the dispute. Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue his remedy in the appropriate civil court, I close this writ petition without expressing anything on the merits of the respective contentions raised by the parties. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-