IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2008 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 14499 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------------- VENUKUMARI,W/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN, NAVARATHA NIVAS, KULASEKHARAMANGALAM (P.O.), VAIKOM,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. SUBAIDA,W/O.BASHEER, RUBEENA MANZIL, KULASEKHARAMANGALAM (P.O.), VAIKOM,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. BASHEER,S/O.MOIDEEN KUTTY, RUBEENA MANZIL, KULASEKHARAMANGALAM (P.O.), VAIKOM,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. TAHSILDAR, VAIKOM. 4. TALUK SURVEYOR, VAIKOM. 5. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALA. 6. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 7. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GP. SMT. N.SUDHA DEVI SRI. P. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASG. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 14499 of 2008(A) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: DOCUMENT NO. 2024/06 OF SRO, VAIKOM. EXT.P2: DOCUMENT NO. 2025/06 OF SRO, VAIKOM. EXT.P3: REPRESENTATION FILED BY RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 12.11.2007. EXT.P4: REPRESENTATION FILED BY RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDEENT ON 20.12.2007. EXT.P5: JUDGMENT DTD. 20.2.2008 IN W.P.(C).NO.5932/08 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P6: REPRESENTATION FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT ON 21.2008. EXT.P7: REPRESENTATION FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM ON 3.5.2008. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL ..... // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. S.SIRI JAGAN, J = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No. 14499 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner seeks a direction to the 5th respondent, the District Collector to consider Ext.P6 complaint filed by her against the order effecting mutation of certain properties in favour of respondents 1 and 2. I am of opinion that if the petitioner is aggrieved by any order effecting mutation, her remedy lies in filing an appeal under clause 18 of the Transfer of Registry Rules. Under clause 18, an appeal against an order passed by the Revenue Inspector shall lie to the Tahsildar and an appeal against the order passed by the Tahsildar or the deputy Tahsildar shall lie to the Revenue Divisional Officer. The District Collector is not an appellate authority under the Rules. That being so, the remedy of the petitioner is to file a proper appeal as contemplated in clause 18. Therefore without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file a proper appeal before the Appellate Authority under clause 18 of the Rules, this writ petition is closed. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE bkn/-