IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2008 / 8TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 905 of 2008(G) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- T.B.KRISHNA PRABHU,S/O. LATE BABARAYA PRABHU, AGED 58, THUNDIPARAMBIL T.D.RAOD, ERNAKULAM KOCHI 35. BY ADV. SMT.R.RANJINI SRI.S.RENJITH RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE KANAYANNUR TALUK,. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICER, KANAYANNUR. - SUBSTITUTED THE 2ND RESPONDENT IS SUBSTITUTED AS VILLAGE OFFICER, KURIKKADU VILLAGE KANAYANNUR TALUK AS PER ORDER DATED 3/7/08 IN I.A. NO.8246/08. 3. K.S.MERCY, D/O. SAMUEL ULLAS, KURIKKADU VILLAGE CHOTTANIKKARA. - DELETED THE 3RD RESPONDENT IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DATED 2/4/08 IN I.A. NO 4602/08 4. SURYAN,S/O.KRISHNAN KANAKKADU, CHOTTANIKKARA DESOM KURIKKADU VILLAGE, KANAYANOOR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD FOR R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADERE SMT. N. SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 905 of 2008(G) -2- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 - THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.3.2006. EXT.P2 - THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE DEEED DATED 17.1.2007. EXT.P3 - THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DATED 1.3.2007. EXT.P4 - THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 17.1.2007. EXT.P5 - THE PHOTOCOPYOF THE REPORT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 3.4.2007. EXT.P6 - THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DELIVERY RECEIPT. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE rhs S.SIRI JAGAN, J ================== W.P(C)No. 905 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 30th day of July, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner seeks mutation of certain properties in his name. The same is not being effected because of certain litigation pending in respect of the property between the petitioner and the 4th respondent. The petitioner's contention is that a suit between the parties in this regard was decreed in favour of the petitioner and the property has been delivered to the petitioner pursuant to the decree. Therefore, according to the petitioner, he is entitled to get mutation of the property in his name. The contention of the 4th respondent is that the 4th respondent has filed an appeal against the decree which is pending and therefore mutation cannot be effected. From Ext.P5, I find that the Village Officer has requested for clarification in the matter from the 1st respondent. 2. I am of opinion that the 1st respondent has to take a W.P(C)No. 905 of 2008 - 2 - decision on the application for mutation stated to have been submitted by the petitioner after hearing the parties concerned in accordance with the Transfer of Registry Rules, particularly clause 16 thereof. In the above circumstances, the 1st respondent is directed to pass final orders in the matter himself, which is now pending before him as is evident from Ext.P5, in accordance with Transfer of Registry Rules after affording an opportunity of being heard to all concerned as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs