IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 5TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 25613 of 2011(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- PRABHAKARAN, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN ASSARI, MINI VIHAR, VEDIVACHANCOIL, BHAGAVATHI NADA. P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 003. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 003. 3. ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 121. 4. RESURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 121. BY GOVT. PLEADER, ADV. SRI .P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MM WP(C)N0.25613/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED NO.3990/1973 DATED 05-01-1973 P2 COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 06-04-2011 P2(a) COPY OF THE REPORT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER P3 COPY OF THE GIFT DEED NO.344/1953 OF VENGANNUR REGISTRY. P4 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 18-05-2010 P5 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15-09-2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE MM ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).25613/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 27th day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT The prayer sought in the writ petition is a direction to consider Ext.P5 representation made by the petitioner seeking implementation of Ext.P4, an order passed by the first respondent cancelling mutation granted in favour of one Rakhi in respect of 3 cents of land situated in Survey No.444/10B of Pallichal Village. However, the averments in the writ petition itself show that Rakhi herself has filed O.S.No.433/2009 before the Additional Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara, and had obtained a decree declaring her title over the property in question. In such a situation, an order passed on Ext.P5 will have an impact on the decree passed by the Civil Court and such a relief cannot be granted by this Court. That apart, though the petitioner has sought such a relief affecting the interest of the aforesaid Rakhi, petitioner has not chosen to implead her in this writ petition. Writ petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs