MANNITHODIKA ABDURAHIMAN Vs. SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.P(C)No.18772 of 2008 and C.R.P No.73 of 2012 are connected. I shall refer to the parties and Exhibits in W.P.(C) No.18772 of 2008 for the sake of convenience .

(2.) THE dispute centres around 14 cents of land in Survey No.338 /2 in Block 79 Field 377 of Wandoor Village in Nilambur Taluk. The petitioner had earlier filed O.S No.358 of 1993 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Manjeri against the second respondent Panchayath. The suit was decreed by Ext.P1 judgment and the operative portion thereof reads as follows.

(3.) IT is of course true that Rule 5(2) of the Rules does not contemplate a detailed order and only warrants a second notice to be issued if dissatisfied with the objection submitted to the first notice. But equity and fair play demands that the evidentiary value of the documents produced by either parties are discussed in the order. This is especially so since the petitioner is armed with a decree for injunction ofcourse based on possession only. Ext.P9 notice issued by the Panchayath at the second instance does not reflect the consideration of the materials on record to come to a definite finding. The petitioner contends that he is in lawful possession based on a sale deed and a purchase certificate supported by an order of Land Tribunal. The Panchayath on the other hand maintains that the property belongs to it and relies on Ext.B1 correspondence file and Ext.B1(a) register .