IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 33432 of 2010(D) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SURMI N., D/O.NASARUDHEEN, CHEMBIL VEEDU, CHANTHANATHOPU P.O., KOLLAM-691 014. BY ADVS. SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR, SMT.P.LISSY JOSE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM – 691 001. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, KOLLAM – 691 001. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PANAYAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM – 691 013. 4. ARIFA BEEVI, PANDALAYIL VEEDU, CHTHANATHOPPE P.O., KOLLAM-691 014. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NARAYANAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 33432 of 2010 D ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 4th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that by Ext.P1, she purchased a property exclusively belonging to the fourth respondent. It is stated that for the reason that there is revenue recovery proceedings pending against the fourth respondent's husband, the property purchased by her is not mutated. It is complaining of the above, the writ petition is filed. 2. If as stated by the petitioner, revenue recovery proceedings are pending against the husband of the fourth respondent and the property conveyed by Ext.P1 is that of the fourth respondent, the pendency of the revenue recovery proceedings cannot be a justification for declining mutation as applied for by the petitioner. 3. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, directing respondents 2 and 3 to pass orders on the application made by the petitioner for mutation of her property in the light of the W.P.(C) No.33432/10 : 2 : above. Petitioner to produce a copy of this judgment and writ petition before respondents 2 and 3 for compliance. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks