IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2011 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 20267 of 2008(K) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. SANDHYA RADHAKRISHNAN, SWATHI, 73-MUSALIAR NAGAR, KILIKOLLUR VILLAGE, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY, USHA SUDHEER-2ND PETITIONER. 2. USHA SUDHEER, NO.8C, ROYAL PALM, VAZHUTHAKKADU, THYCADU VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KOLLAM. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE OFFICE, VADAKKEVILA, KOLLAM. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.20267/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY 2/1/2007. P2 COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.3492 DATED 14/9/2007. P3 COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED IN FAVOUR OF THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 14/9/2007. P4 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 5/10/2007. P5 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT TO THE REVENUE MINISTER IN OCTOBER 2007. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.20267 OF 2008(K) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioners claim that the properties covered by Exts.P2 and P3 settlement deeds belong to them absolutely. According to them they made applications under the Transfer of Registry Rules for getting the properties mutated in their names. However, the 4th respondent did not effect mutation. They moved the 3rd respondent for getting the mutation effected which was also of no avail. In such circumstances they filed Exts.P4 and P5 representations before the District Collector and the Minister for Revenue. Even on the representations there was no response. That led the petitioners to file this writ petition praying for a direction to the 4th respondent to mutate the property covered by Exts.P2 and P3 in their favour. 2. Learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted that in O.S.No.462/2007 pending before the Addl. Sub Court, Kollam, the court had ordered attachment of the property and that it was therefore that they could not consider the applications made by the petitioners for mutation in their favour. WPC.No. 20267/08 :2 : 3. However, counsel for the petitioners has asserted before this court that the attachment schedule in the suit mentioned above did not cover the property covered by Exts.P2 and P3. Irrespective of the same, it is also brought to my notice that by Ext.P5(a) judgment rendered on 15th October, 2010, the suit itself has been dismissed. 4. Obviously, the property covered by Exts.P2 and P3 belong to the petitioners. If that be so, their application made under the Transfer of Registry Rules is liable to be considered on merits. The only objection was the pendency of O.S.No.462/2007 with an order of attachment. Now that in view of the fact that the suit itself stands dismissed by Ext.P5(a) judgment, the said objection can no longer survive. Therefore, there will be a direction to the 4th respondent to pass orders on the applications made by the petitioners for mutation in the light of the aforesaid observations. Orders as above shall be passed at any rate within 4 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) vi JUDGE WPC.No. 20267/08 :3 :