IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2010 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 4204 of 2010(A) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PASTER BINU JOHN, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.V.V.JOHN, VALAYIL HOUSE, THENGELI MURI, KUTTOOR VILLAGE, KUTTOOR P.O., THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ESM.KABEER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. V.D.PATHROSE, S/O.DANIEL, VATTAMALA PARAMBU, ERIKAD VILLAGE, PUTHUPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. V.D.JOY, S/O.DANIEL, VATTAMALA PARAMBU, ERIKAD VILLAGE, PUTHUPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. THE THASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. By GP P NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 4204 OF 2010 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF MARCH, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner herein purchased 16 cents of property in Sy.No.679/1/15 (Re.Survey No.227/19 of Puthuppalli Village) from one Michel George as per document No.859/05 under valid consideration. The vendor had purchased the property from one of the sharers Shri V.D.Chacko as per partition deed No.328/1992 of S.R.O., Puthuppally. Mutation was effected in his favour. 2. The petitioner constructed a residential house in the property and the Grama Panchayat has given Door No.IX/58 to the house also. The petitioner is now residing at Thiruvalla after leasing out the above house. 3. The petitioner has received a notice as per Exhibit P5 from the 4th respondent stating that an appeal was received from respondents 1 and 2 and some others against the cancellation of mutation. Accordingly, the petitioner filed Exhibit P6 reply in the matter. Again he was issued a notice dated 4.1.2010 directing W.P.(C)No.4204/10 -2- him that if he did not appear on 10.2.2010 and submit his objections, the mutation effected will be cancelled. It is the case of the petitioner that even though the petitioner had approached the 4th respondent to explain the real facts, he threatened to cancel the mutation, even without considering and examining the records. 4. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner filed this Writ Petition. This Court passed the following interim order on 15.2.2010. “ Notice on admission. The petitioner contends that even though request was made pursuant to Exhibit P7 notice, no details as to the complaint, including the copy of the complaint in the matter have not been furnished by the respondent. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner was denied an effective opportunity to contest the proceedings before the Additional Tahsildar. There will be a direction to the 4th respondent to furnish to the petitioner copies of the complaint filed by the respondents 1 and 2 and to grant sufficient time to file objections before taking a final decision. The petitioner will produce a copy of W.P.(C)No.4204/10 -3- this order before the 4th respondent.” 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in tune with the directions issued, the petitioner was furnished all the documents with regard to the filing of the appeal. Therefore, what remains is only the hearing of the appeal. Hence, there will be a direction to the 4th respondent to take a decision on the appeal, after hearing the petitioner and other parties in the appeal including respondents 1 and 2 herein, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE dsn