IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 29594 of 2011(Y) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. RAJI, AGED 32 YEARS, W/O.MANOJ, KUNNATHULLY HOUSE, CHOONDAL VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR. 2. BINDU, AGED 39 YEARS, W/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN,KUNNATHUVALAPPIL HOUSE, PERAMANGALAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK AND DISTRICT. 3. KAVITHA, AGED 35 YEARS, W/O.LOHIDHAKSHAN, KUNNATHUVALAPPIL HOUSE, PERAMANGALAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK AND DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.D.DILEEP RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. VILLAGE OFFICER, THALIKKULAM VILLAGE, THALIKKULAM VILLAGE OFFICE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.PIN- 680 506. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR, COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. PIN -680 003. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. PIN- 680 003. R1 TO R3 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.J.RAJASREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.29594/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2040/2007 DT.15.09.2007 OF THE VADANAPPILLY SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2041/2007 DT.15.09.2007 OF THE VADANAPPILLY SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OS 234/2008 DT.19.07.2010. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DT. 03.09.2011. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PENDING BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 29594 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T Seeking mutation of the property covered by Ext.P1 and acceptance of tax on that basis petitioner made an application which was rejected by Ext.P4 order passed by the first respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner made Ext.P5 appeal under Rule 18 of the Transfer of Registry Rules and it is pending consideration of the 2nd respondent. In this writ petition what is sought for is a direction for expeditious consideration of the appeal. 2. Since the appeal is a statutory one, it is necessary that the same is to be considered. Therefore I direct the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P5 appeal with notice to the petitioners and as expeditiously as possible at any rate within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, along with a copy of this writ petition. The writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/-