IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 25462 of 2008(F) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ MRS. VALSA THOMAS, AGED 76, W/O.T.K. THOMAS, THENGANAKUZHY, THOTTAKKAT.P.O, KOTTAYAM. BY ADVS.MR.P.N.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR, MR.P.VISWANATHAN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KAKKANAD VILLAGE. 4. DR. REMANI E. PAUL, AGED 70, W/O. MAJOR PAUL M. SAMUEL, ASHIRWAD SHALOM, COONOOR-2, NILGIRIS. 5. MRS. MARIAMMA MATHEW, AGED 68, W/O. LATE T.V. MATHEW, PULLIATTU THUKALAN, CHERUPARAMBATH ROAD, KOCHI-20. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.R. SREELATHA R5 BY ADV. MR.K.C.KIRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.25462/2008 F APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.NO.124 OF 1977 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE DECREE IN .S.NO.124 Of 1977 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN O.P.NO.8921 OF 1985. EXT.P4: COPY OF LETTER NO.L1 28355/96 GIVEN TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE BASIC TAX REMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE NAME OF LATE SMT. SARA VARKEY IN RESPECT TO THE SAID PROPERTY, DTD. 7/01/1997 CONTAINING THANDAPER NO.2925. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO.392 OF 1997 OF SRO, THRIKKAKARA. EXT.P7: COPY F THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN O.P.NO.9217 OF 1997 DTD. 2/06/1997. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 20/03/1997 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM IN A.S.NO.89 OF 1997 DTD. 30/08/1999. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 29/03/2007 BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN WP(C) NO.29958/07 DTD. 16/10/07. *EXT.P11(A): INCORPORATED: EXT.P11(A): COPY OF COMMUNICATION DTD. 14/03/2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. *EXT.P11(A) INCORPORATED AS PER ORDER DTD. 17/09/2008 IN I.A.11774/08. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 25462 of 2008 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Grievance of the petitioner is regarding the delay on the part of the respondents in effecting mutation of the property, covered by Exhibit P6, partition deed executed by the petitioner and other legal representatives of deceased T.M. Varkey. Petitioner submits that in respect of the property covered by Exhibit P6 partition deed, his title has been declared by the Civil court as per Exhibits P1 and P2. 2. It is stated that after the death of her mother, when the property was partitioned by Exhibit P6, she sought mutation of the property in her favour. At that stage, mutation was declined on the ground that appeal against Exhibits P1 and P2 was pending. It is stated that appeal has since been decided in their favour by Exhibit P9 and that even at that stage, when mutation was declined to be effected, petitioner approached this Court and by Exhibit P11 judgment, this Court directed the second respondent to consider Exhibit P8 application made by petitioner for the above purpose. In pursuance thereof by Exhibit P11(a) communication dated 14/03/2008 has been issued by the W.P.(C) No. 25462 /2008 2 2nd respondent, informing the petitioner that the matter has been placed before the first respondent and that he is awaiting orders of the first respondent. Thus the request of the petitioner for mutation of 1.63 Acres of land situated in Survey Nos. 395/1A 15 and 395/1A 16 of Kakkanad Village is pending consideration of the first respondent and second respondent is awaiting orders in this behalf. 3. Taking into account the above factual situation, I direct the first respondent to pass orders on proposal made by the second respondent and communicate the same to the second respondent. Orders as above shall be passed by the first respondent as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks of production of copy of this judgment. Once orders are passed by the 2nd respondent, consequential orders shall be passed by the 1st respondent, immediately thereafter. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the first respondent, he shall do needful in this matter. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm