IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2009 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 38647 of 2003(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. S.KALIYAPPAN, S/O.LATE SIVAYANAM, AGED 36 YEARS, LEKSHAM COLONY, MUNNAR P.O. IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. REMESH, S/O.MADAKKANNU, AGED 27 YEARS, FACTORY DIVISION, LOCK HEART ESTATE, DEVIKULAM P.O. IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.M.VARGHESE SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PAINAVU, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. THE SUB REGISTRAR, DEVIKULAM, SUB REGIASTRAR'S OFFICE, DEVIKULAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, DEVIKULAM TALUK, DEVIKULAM P.O. IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KANNAN DEVAN HILLE VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM P.O. IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.K. RAVIKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 2441/2003 DATED 15.5.2003 OF SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, DEVIKULAM EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE FIRST PETITIONER. EXT.P2 PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICTION SUBMITTED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED NIL. EXT.P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE SLE DEED NO. 1335/03 DATED 2.4.2003 OF THE SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, DEVIKULAM EXECUTED BY VARGHESE. EXT.P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR MUTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 2.4.2003 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ;REPRESENTATION DATED 1.11.2003 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 38647 OF 2003 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The prayer in the WPC is for direction to the fourth respondent to effect mutation of the properties purchased by the petitioners under separate sale deeds. Government Pleader submitted that there is allegation of bogus pattas issued in the area and so much so title deeds are subject matter of Vigilance Enquiry. If there is dispute with regard to title of the land purchased by the petitioners, then of course petitioners cannot press for mutation based on documents under investigation. W.P. is accordingly disposed of directing the fourth respondent to consider petitioners' applications and pass orders after Vigilance Enquiry is over and after bogus pattas are cancelled. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 2