IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2011 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1933 RP.No. 1166 of 2010(A) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.15409/2010 Dated 20/05/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------- JOSEPH V.V., AGED 77 YEARS, S/O. VARKEY, R/O.NO.33/1762(50/465 J), MANIMALA CROSS ROAD, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-24. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ SRI.ABHILASH AKBAR SRI.T.B.SIVAPRASAD SMT.SUMEY CHANDRAN SRI.V.S.PREJITH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688 001. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688 001. 4. TAHSILDAR, KUTTANAD TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688 001. 5. ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, KUTTANAD TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688 001. 6. VILLAGE OFFICER, MUTTAR VILLAGE, KUTTANAD TALUK,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688 001. 7. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SURVEY, DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688 001. 8. JAMES KUNJU V.V., AGED 64 YEARS, S/O. VARKEY, VADAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MUTAR, NOW RESIDING AT VADAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KARUVELY ROAD, KUNDANNUR, MARADU P.O., KOCHI, PIN-682 304. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== R.P.No. 1166 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 27th day of May, 2011 O R D E R This review petition is filed by the petitioner in the writ petition seeking review of my judgment dated 20.5.2010. The writ petition was filed seeking the following reliefs: “i) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 4th respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 application for cancellation of mutation of the property described in A and D schedules to Ext.P1 Will effected in favour of 8th respondent, in accordance with law within a time frame of one month. ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents 3 to 6 to effect mutation of the property described in A schedule to Ext.P1 Will in favour of the petitioner and to permit him to pay basic tax in respect of the property in his name.” 2. My judgment reads thus: “When it was pointed out to the counsel for the petitioner that there is no provision in the Transfer of Registry Rules for considering an application for cancellation of mutation effected in favour of another person and that the petitioner's remedy lies in challenging orders of mutation in favour of the other person, counsel seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the orders of mutation in favour of the 8th respondent. Permission is granted and the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the above liberty.” 3. The averment in the review petition is that subsequently for challenging the order of mutation in favour of the 8th respondent, the petitioner applied for a copy of the order, when, the petitioner was informed that no such order of mutation has been passed. Therefore, the petitioner now submits that the petitioner's second prayer ought to r.p.1166/10 2 have been considered. As expressly made clear in the Transfer of Registry Rules, mutation is only for fiscal purposes and the rights over the property as between the parties will have to be settled by the civil court. Admittedly, a civil dispute regarding the property in question is pending before the civil court as between the petitioner and the 8th respondent. Now that a civil dispute is pending between the petitioner and the 8th respondent in respect of the same property, it only appropriate that the petitioner approaches the authorities under the Transfer of Registry Rules, after he gets his rights over the property declared by the civil court. Without prejudice to that right, this review petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge