IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2010 / 25TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 25859 of 2009(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.MOHANAN, BHAMALAYAM, POONKODU BHAGAVATHI NATA, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA SRI.G.SAKTHIDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VIZHINJAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. GEORGE JOSEPH, HOTEL ORION, AVAD THURA, VIZHINJAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. ADDL.R3 3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (Impleaded as per order dated 23.9.09 in I.A.11446/09) ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW FOR R2 SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU FOR R2 SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/01/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 25859 of 2009 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.B.5280/97 (P.V.3/97) DATED 20.1.98 ISSUED BY THE RDO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN R.P.38182/98 DATED 19.4.00 OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 6.8.09 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT (TRUE COPY) P.A TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................... W.P.(C).25859/2009 ....................... Dated this the 15th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner submits that he had purchased 5 cents of land in Survey No.42/17-1 of Vizhinjam Village vide sale deed No.1577 dated 29.7.1986 of Thiruvallam Sub Registrar's Office. He applied for mutation which was effected in his favour. However the 2nd respondent filed an appeal against the said order resulting in Ext.P1 order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvananthapuram, ordering fresh mutation in favour of the petitioner. 2. The 1st respondent in Ext.P1 proceedings, who is not a party in this writ petition, filed a revision against Ext.P1, that was rejected by the District Collector by Ext.P2 order. After Ext.P2 order was rendered, petitioner moved the 1st respondent filing Ext.P3, seeking a fresh mutation in pursuance to Ext.P1 order passed by the Revenue Divisional Order. Ext.P3 application is dated 6.8.2009 and according to the petitioner, there has not been any progress in the W.P.(C).25859/09 2 matter. It is in these circumstances, he filed this writ petition praying for a direction to the 1st respondent to expedite orders on Ext.P3 in the light of Exts.P1 and P2. 3. However, the learned Government Pleader points out that an application for mutation has to be in the form as prescribed in the Transfer of Registry Rules. Since Ext.P3 is only a representation made to the 1st respondent and it is not an application in the proper form, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: 4. It will be open to the petitioner to file a fresh application in the prescribed form for mutation in respect of the property referred to above. It is directed that if an application is made within two weeks from today, 1st respondent shall consider the said application in the light of Exts.P1 and P2 and pass orders, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks thereafter. 5. Petitioner may produce a copy of this judgment along W.P.(C).25859/09 3 with the copy of the writ petition before the 1st respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs