IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2008 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 17234 of 2008(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ MALATHI PANICKER, W/O LATE MOHANDAS PANICKER, AGED 50 YEARS, POLLAKATTU HOUSE, MANDALKODU, KOTTAYI VILLAGE, ALATHUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI. MANOJ R.NAIR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MATHUR -II, VILLAGE, MATHUR, PALAKKAD. 2. CHANDRASHEKARAN, KALLANPARMBIL HOUSE, MATHUR AMSOM, KOTTAYI DESOM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. K.SATHIS, KALLANPARAMBIL HOUSE, MATHUR AMSOM, KOTTAYI DESOM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY GP. SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No. 17234 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th day of June, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner has applied for mutation of his properties which he purchased on 9.1.2008. The same was refused by the village officer on the ground that there were revenue recovery proceedings against the 2nd respondent, in respect of a portion of the property. The petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent have filed a suit before the Munsiff's Court, Palakkad, for injunction restraining the village officer from initiating revenue recovery proceedings against him, which was decreed on 31.7.2007 and therefore the 1st respondent cannot now deny mutation of the petitioner's property on the ground that revenue recovery proceedings are initiated. Petitioner submits that petitioner has produced the decree of the lower court, before the 1st respondent under cover of Ext.P3. Petitioner now seeks a direction to the 1st respondent to reconsider the matter in the light of the decree of the civil court. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. W.P.(C).No. 17234 OF 2008 2 3. I am of opinion that since subsequently the Munsiff's court has passed a decree, which prima facie appears to be in favour of the petitioner, it is only proper that the 1st respondent reconsiders the matter in the light of the said decree. This the 1st respondent shall do and pass fresh orders on the application for mutation submitted by the petitioner 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. The petitioner shall forward a certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition to the 1st respondent for compliance. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE bkn/-