IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2010 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 9448 of 2010(E) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. ROY MATHEW, AGED 53, S/O. LATE ANNAMMA MATHUKUTTY, KILUTHATTIL ANAKULANGARA HOUSE, THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE, VADACODE KARA, KANGARAPPADY, KOCHI - 682 021. 2. SAJU MATHEW, AGED 50, S/O. LATE ANNAMMA MATHUKUTTY, KILUTHATTIL ANAKULANGARA HOUSE, THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE, VADACODE KARA, KANGARAPPADY, KOCHI - 682 021. 3. SHEELA, AGED 56, D/O. LATE ANNAMMA MATHUKUTTY, VALIYAPUNATHIL (H), EDAKKATTUVAYAL.P.O, EDAKKATTUVAYAL PANCHAYATH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. MATHEW MATHUKUTTY, AGED 90, S/O. LATE MATHEW, KILUTHATTIL ANAKKULANGARA HOUSE, THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE, VADACODE KARA, ERNAKULAM. 5. HELANI, AGED 66, D/O. LATE THOMMAN PATHROSE, PANAYELIKKUDIYIL HOUSE, PULLUVAZHY.P.O, RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI.K.C.ELDHO RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PERUMBAVOOR. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPT. OF LAND REVENUE, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 9448 of 2010-E - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of April, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioners seek for a direction to the respondents to effect mutation of their property covered by Exts.P2 and P3 on the basis of the applications submitted as evidenced by Exts.P4 and P5. 2. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioners are plaintiffs in a suit for partition before the Sub Court, Perumbavoor as O.S.No.133/2008. The matter was ultimately settled by the intervention of the Lok Adalath as evidenced by Ext.P1. Later, two settlement deeds were executed in favour of the petitioners as per Exts.P2 and P3. Thereafter, they have moved the authority concerned for effecting mutation. According to the petitioners, there cannot be any valid objection with regard to the claim of the petitioners for effecting mutation. It is pointed out that so far no communication has been received from the respondents as to why the applications have not been considered. 3. Since the applications are pending, there will be a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action under the Transfer of Registry Rules and communicate the decision to the petitioners, within a wpc9448 /2010 2 period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/