IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 34915 of 2010(L) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- JOSEPH V.V., AGED 77 YEARS, S/O.VARKEY, R/O.NO.33/1762(50/465 J), MANIMALA CROSS ROAD, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-24. BY ADVS. SRI.C.S.MANU, SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 4. TAHSILDAR, KUTTANAD TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 5. ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, KUTTANAD TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 6. VILLAGE OFFICER, MUTTAR VILLAGE, KUTTANAD TALUK, ALAPPUZHA. 7. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SURVEY, DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA. W.P.(C). NO.34915/2010-L: 8. JAMES KUNJU V.V., AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.VARKEY, VADAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MUTTAR, NOW RESIDING AT VADAPARAMBU HOUSE, KARUVELY ROAD, KUNDANNUR, MARADU P.O., KOCHI-682 304. R1 TO R7 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NARAYANAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 34915 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner complains that a portion of the property, which devolved on him by Ext.P1 Will has been mutated in favour of the 8th respondent, his brother. On an earlier occasion, complaining of the above, petitioner had approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.15409/10. When that writ petition came up for orders before this Court, the writ petition was withdrawn reserving the right to challenge the orders of mutation in favour of the 8th respondent by invoking the statutory remedy of appeal. In this writ petition, what the petitioner contends is that despite his application, order of mutation has not been issued, and therefore, he is not in a position to seek appellate remedies. 2. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner raised the aforesaid contention, in my view, if the petitioner has such a grievance, the remedy available to the petitioner is to seek review of Ext.P13. Therefore, I am not in a position to entertain the aforesaid plea in this writ petition filed by the petitioner. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp