IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2008 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 36438 of 2008(K) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- M/S PAM LABS INDIA HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED, REGISTERED OFFICE AT KEEZHILLAM.P.O, PERUMBAVOOR-683 541, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR DR.P.P.PATHROSE. BY ADV. SRI.S.M.PREM SMT.K.P.SANTHI SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN (PALAKKAD) SRI.P.K.NIJOY RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.36438 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 2nd December, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Exhibit P7 order passed by the District Collector rejecting the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer under the Transfer of Registry Rules. Dispute relates to 4.50 ares of land in R.S No.274/1 of Thanneermukkom South Village belonging to the father of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. According to the petitioner, the father of the petitioner executed a gift deed as per Deed No.1400/90 dated 7.7.1990 of the Puthenambalam S.R.O and petitioner obtained possession thereafter. According to the petitioner, thereafter that is 13 years after the execution of the gift deed, the original owner had executed a cancellation of gift deed as per Document No.993/2003 and fresh Settlement Deed was executed as per 994/2003 on 16.4.2003. Petitioner contends that these documents are fraudulent and cannot W.P ( C) No.36438 of 2008 2 act in derogation of his title to the property which he derived under the gift deed executed by his father in the year 1990. Second respondent, presumably on the basis of the cancellation deed and settlement deed sought for mutation of the property in her name. This was allowed by the original authority and appeal preferred by the petitioner against the same is also rejected as stated above. 2. The District Collector affirmed the order passed by the subordinate authority stating that as evidenced by the new gift deed that is document No.994/2003, 2nd respondent seems to be in possession and enjoyment of the property and the dispute regarding title to the property is to be adjudicated by the competent court. Petitioner has sought for review of the said order on the premise that he was not heard before such orders are passed. 3. In my view, it is appropriate that the District Collector hears the affected parties before passing an order in the nature of Exhibit P7. In the result, th writ petition is disposed of directing the District Collector to treat Exhibit P8 as an application W.P ( C) No.36438 of 2008 3 seeking rehearing of the revision, hear the petitioner and 2nd respondent and pass orders within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.36438 of 2008 4 W.P ( C) No.36438 of 2008 5