IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2008 / 18TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 37553 of 2007(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- A.ANWAR HUSSAIN, S/O.AHAMMED HUSSAIN, KAITHAWARAM BUNGLOW, KANKATHU MUKKU, THIRUMULLAVARAM P.O. KOLLAM - 691012. BY ADV. SRI.P.SIVARAJ RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, KOLLAM. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KOLLAM EAST VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 3. A.ABDUL SALAM, S/O.AHAMMED HUSSAIN, KAITHAWARAM BUNGLOW, KANKATHU MUKKU, THIRUMULLAVARAM P.O., KOLLAM - 691 012. 4. G.SOMAN, S/O.GOPAN, ROHINI, PALLIKKAL MURI, MYLAM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 37553 OF 2007 U ===================== Dated this the 8th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T The pleadings in this case would show that the petitioner along with his brother owned a few plots of land. According to the petitioner, contrary to the understanding between him and his brother, his brother has sold one of the items of properties to the 4th respondent. Coming to know of such transfer, petitioner says that he has made Ext.P1 request to the 1st respondent, requesting him not to effect change of thandaper in favour of the buyer. The request now made in this writ petition is to direct the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P1 representation and not to effect change of thandaper without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. 2. Having heard the counsel for the petitioner, I am not satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for an order as WPC 37553/07 :2 : prayed for. If at all the petitioner has any grievance, it can only be against his brother, the 3rd respondent for having violated the terms of the alleged understanding between themselves. Unless the petitioner gets the sale in favour of the 4th respondent nullified, the 4th respondent is entitled to enjoy the benefits of the same. In that process, if the 3rd respondent is entitled to get revenue records altered, that cannot be stopped by the petitioner. In view of this, I am not inclined to pass an order requiring the 1st respondent not to alter the revenue records without giving an opportunity to the petitioner as sought for in Ext.P1. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. Rp