IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2011 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 33157 of 2011(T) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- ANIL KUMAR,S/O.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, LEKSHMI BHAVAN,MANKKARA,SASTHAMKOTTA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL SRI.PRASAD.T. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, COLLECTORATE, CUTCHERY P.O,KOLLAM-13. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, SASTHAMKOTTA VILLAGE, SASTHAMKOTTA P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN -690 521. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED SHAH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/12/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.33157/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.3745/2011 OF SASTHAMCOTTA SUB REGISTRY DATED 27/10/2011. P2 COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2212/1980 OF SASTHAMCOTTA SUB REGISTRY DATED 08/05/1980. P3 COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF SMT.K.P.LEKSHMI ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTH AND DEATH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION DATED 24/10/2008. P4 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.K.DIS/G4/32462/08 DATED 24/02/2009 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR,TALUK OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P5 COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT CERTIFYING REMITTANCE OF THE TAX FOR THE PERIOD 2011-2012 IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY. P6 COPY OF THE APPLICATION AND ORDER DATED 03/11/2011 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P7 COPY OF THE ATTACHMENT ORDER DATED 03/11/2011 IN I.A.NO.1876/2011 IN O.S.NO.288/2011 OF THE SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 33157 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner claims that he is the owner of 3 Ares of property comprised in R.S. No. 156/12 in Block No.14 of Sasthamcottah Village. According to him seeking mutation of the property, Ext.P6 was submitted before the 1st respondent on 3.11.2011 and that the RDO passed an order requiring the 2nd respondent to pass orders on the request of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Transfer of Registry Rules. Despite this order of the RDO, which was also passed on 3.11.2011, mutation is still not effected. It is with this complaint the writ petition is filed. 2. In the facts as noticed above, what is required is that the 2nd respondent should carry out aforesaid direction of the RDO. This the 2nd respondent shall do, as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate, within four weeks on production of a copy of this judgment. W.P.C. No. 33157 OF 2011 -2- 3. Having regard the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that an attachment ordered by Sub Court, Pathanamthitta on 14.12.2011 is relied on to refuse mutation, it is clarified that this Court has already held in the judgment in Joseph Kurian v. Village Officer (2010(3) KLT 251), with the fact that an attachment is in force cannot be a reason for declining mutation. Therefore, while implementing the order of RDO, the 2nd respondent will duly advert this fact also. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. Kp/-