SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 10158

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J
ABDUL SALAM – Appellant
Versus
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 3445 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.K.M.MUHAMMED HUSSAIN, SHRI.BALAKRISHNAN M., SMT.STEPHY THOMAS
For the Respondents: SRI. SHAMEER P M

The court confirms the importance of timely consideration of claims concerning property disputes and safety concerns.

Headnote:The present writ petition seeks a direction to the first respondent for the consideration of Ext.P7 representation. The petitioners, husband and wife, allege forcible occupation of their property by the second respondent, leading to threats to their safety. The court orders that the first respondent must consider Ext.P7 after hearing all parties within two weeks. Issues arise regarding the scope of a rightful claim to property and the need for timely judicial intervention. The court highlights the necessity for a hearing and legal adherence to resolve disputes of possession and safety.

Result: The first respondent is directed to consider Ext.P7 within two weeks.

Table of Content
1. dispute over property and threats. (Para 2 , 3)
2. court directions on timely hearings. (Para 4 , 5)

J U D G M E N T

The above writ petition is filed seeking for a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P7 representation submitted before the said respondent.

2. The petitioners are husband and wife, of whom the first petitioner is a senior citizen. As per Ext.P1 Sale Deed No.4206/2008, the residential house was purchased in the name of the first petitioner. After marriage, the second respondent and her husband, who is the son of the petitioners, were residing in the house of the second respondent at Ayitti in South Trikaripur Village. The son of the petitioners is presently working abroad.

3. On 12.11.2025, the second respondent forcibly entered and started residing in the petitioners’ house against their will and wish, and demanded an amount of ₹1 crore. Thereafter, the second respondent manhandled the petitioners, as a result of which the first petitioner sustained bite injuries. The petitioners apprehend threat to their lives, and their peaceful living has been disturbed by the acts of the second respondent. Consequently, they approached the first respondent by filing Ext.P7 representation dated 21.11.2025. Aggrieved by the non-consideration of Ext.P7, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. Since I propose to dispose of the writ petition by giving a direction to the respondents, notice to the second respondent is dispensed with.

5. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that Ext.P7 petition can be considered in a time bound manner.

Considering the afore facts, I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition as follows:-

The first respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on Ext.P7 petition in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to all parties, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top