IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 16TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27768 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- THE BEST ONE PROPERTIES DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., KOTHAMANGALAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN SRI.P.G.BOSE, S/O.GOVINDAN, AGED 54 YEARS, PUTHENKUDI HOUSE, EDANADU KARA, ERAMALLOOR VILLAGE NELLIKUZHI, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PAINAVU.P.O., IDUKKI-685515. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DEVIKULAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685613. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, NEDUMKANDAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685553. 6. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHINNAKANAL VILLAGE CHINNAKANAL.P.O., MUNNAR-685618. SPL.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 27768 OF 2010 (U) ===================== Dated this the 7th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims to be the predecessor of the property covered by LA 2/82 and LA 187/70 having an extent of 1.64 acres and 94 cents respectively. He sought mutation and that was rejected by the Tahsildar as per Ext.P6. He moved appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, who disposed of the appeal by Ext.P9 order holding that the patta in LA 2/82 for an extent of 1.64 acres is genuine and that verification proved that the patta in LA 187/70 is fabricated. 2. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted Ext.P10 representation to the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Tahsildar requesting that he be permitted to get mutation effected in respect of the property covered by patta in LA 2/82 having an extent of 1.64 acres. No action was taken. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed seeking an order to quash Ext.P9 order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer to the extent his request has been rejected. 3. Going by Ext.P9 order of the RDO, the patta issued in LA 2/82 in respect of the property having an extent of 1.64 acres WPC No. 27768/10 :2 : is genuine. If that be so, petitioner is entitled to the fruits of the said order. This precisely is the request made by the petitioner by Ext.P10 representation, which is stated to be pending before the 5th respondent. Necessarily, therefore, the 5th respondent has to take action on Ext.P10 in the light of the findings of the Revenue Divisional Officer in Ext.P9. This the 5th respondent shall do, at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. 4. In so far as the findings of the RDO concerning the patta in LA 187/70 is concerned, a reading of Ext.P9 shows that verification of the documents proved the said document to be a fabricated one. There is nothing available in this proceedings to conclude that the said finding is erroneous. Even otherwise, such factual finding cannot be impugned in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, I leave it open to the petitioner to pursue the remedies against the said order before the District Collector or such other Authority. 5. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 5th respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp