IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 31964 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- REMANI, W/O.RADHAKRISHNAN, KANJIRAPARAMBIL, NATTIKA, THRIPRAYAR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VALAPPAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 567. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 506. ADDL.R3. SAIDU, S/O.AMUTTY, KOLLAIPEEDIKAYIL HOUSE, NEAR VIJAYA BHARATHI SCHOOL, KAIPAMANGALAM P.O, KODUNGALLUR 680 664. (ADDL.R3 IS IMPEADED AS PER ORDER IN IA NO.15147/2010 DT 2/11/2010) GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 31964 OF 2010 (U) ===================== Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T According to the petitioner, in respect of the property covered by Ext.P1, she has made Ext.P4 application under the provisions of Transfer of Registry Rules to get the said property mutated in her favour. It is stated that the said application is pending consideration before the 2nd respondent and that the 2nd respondent is delaying orders on Ext.P4 for the reason that the additional 3rd respondent has obtained an attachment in respect of the property. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed. Thus, even according to the petitioner, the application made by her is pending, and in that view, at this stage, what is required is that the 2nd respondent should consider Ext.P4 application. 2. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P4 application for mutation of the property covered by Ext.P1 document. Before orders are passed, at any rate within 6 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment, notice shall be issued to the petitioner and the WPC No. 31964/10 :2 : additional 3rd respondent. 3. Petitioner also says that the 1st respondent is yet to forward his report on Ext.P4 to the 2nd respondent. If that be so, it is directed that on the production of a copy of this judgment, 1st respondent should submit his report as well. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before respondents 1 and 2 for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp