IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2008 / 8TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 3243 of 2008(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SHRI.V.K.VENKITESWARA PAI, VALIYAVEETTIL, CHIRAKKAKOM MURI, VARAPUZHA PAKUTHY. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, PARAVUR TALUK, O/O TAHSILDAR, NORTH PARAVUR. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, VARAPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. RAJAN BABU, DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, KOTTUVODATH COLONY, KANNAMCHIRA JUNCTION, KEDAMANGALAM, NORTH PARAVUR. 4. K.RAMACHANDRA PAI, S/O.KESAVA PAI, VALIYAVEETTIL, CHIRAKKAKOM MURI, VARAPUZHA PAKUTHY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.3243 of 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT The prayer in this writ petition is to declare that the transfer of registry in respect of 54 cents of land in survey No.322/6 A of Varapuzha Village covered by Ext.P1 in favour of the 4th respondent is illegal, vitiated by fraud, illegal gratification and non compliance of the statutory provisions. From a reading of the pleadings, it is obvious that the 4th respondent has obtained Ext.P10 patta in his favour covering the very same property. It is also seen that mutation has been effected in the name of the 4th respondent. If the transfer of registry effected is vitiated for any reason as alleged by the petitioner, the remedy available is not to file a writ petition but to file a properly constituted suit before the appropriate civil court. 2. However, the petitioner contends that he had applied for a copy of the order effecting mutation in the name of the 4th respondent and Ext.P4 is the reply that has been given. In Ext.P10 it is stated that mutation has been effected in the name WPC3241/2008 2 of the 4th respondent by the previous village officer and hence the present village officer expressed his inability to issue a copy of the proceedings. This cannot be approved. Once an application has been received it is the duty of the 2nd respondent to consider the application and issue copies, if it is legally permissible. I do not find any illegality in the request made by the petitioner and therefore, in my view, the second respondent ought to have issued the copies applied for by the petitioner. 3. Therefore, I direct that the second respondent shall reconsider Ext.P9 application made by the petitioner and issue the copies sought for by him. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within four weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE csl