IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2009 / 3RD MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 3760 of 2008(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BHADRASENAN, S/O. PUSHPANGADHAN, PSB NIVAS, KADAKKAVOOR, CHIRAYINKEEZH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, EDACODE. 4. SUNILDETH, S/O. SIVADASAN, AYODHYAYIL, CHITTATTINKARA DESOM, AVANAVANCHERRY VILLAGE, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. BABU, S/O. SADASIVAN, SHAMMI NIVAS, KIZHAKKUVILOM VILLAGE, CHITTATTUMKARA, CHIRAYINKEEZH. 6. KERALA TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, REP. BY ITS WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SC SRI. RENIL ANTO KANDAM KULATHIL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPEDIX Ext.P1. True copy of the sale deed No.2034/07 Ext.P2. True copy of the communication dated 31.10.2007.\\ Ext.P3. True copy of the reply received from the Munsiff's Court Attingal dated nil. // true copy// P.A to Judge. ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No.3760 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that he had purchased 16.25 cents of land from the 5th respondent under Ext.P1 sale deed. However, mutation was declined to be effected by the 3rd respondent and therefore the writ petition is filed. 2. It has now come out that the 4th respondent has already filed a civil suit against the 5th respondent impleading the petitioner also, challenging the document of title of the 5th respondent. That apart, Ext.P3 order also deals with the liabilities and the attachments that were in force over the property in question. In such circumstance, unless the aforesaid controversies are resolved, this court will not be justified in issuing a direction as sought for, for mutation of the property in favour of the petitioner. WP(c).No.3760/08 /2/ Therefore, in view of the pendency of the disputes referred to above, this writ petition is closed, leaving it open to the petitioner to move the appropriate authorities once the issues are settled. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.3760/08 /2/