IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2010 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 15459 of 2009(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- ANNAMMA MATHEW, ALUMMOOTTIL HOUSE, THRIKKODITHANAM.P.O., CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.JOMY GEORGE SRI.M.J.BENNY SRI.LITHIN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ALAPUZHA. 3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFICER, CHENGANNUR. 4. TAHASILDAR, CHENGANNUR. 5. SAMUAL ABRAHAM, ANGAYIL KALIKKELETHU HOUSE, THIRUVANVANDOOR.P.O., CHENGANNUR TALUK. 6. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THIRUVANANVANDOOR, VILLAGE OFFICE, CHENGANNUR TALUK. 7. DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, ALAPPUZHA. 8. K.V.IGNATIOUS, DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, ALAPPUZHA. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 15459 OF 2009 (B) ===================== Dated this the 27th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T The grievance of the petitioner is mainly regarding the prima facie contradiction between Exts.P10 and P11. 2. Petitioner states that she obtained 35 cents of land from her parents as per a gift deed executed in 1984. It is stated that her application for transfer of registry was rejected by the 2nd respondent, which was subject matter of OP No.9559/03. That original petition was disposed of by Ext.P8 judgment rendered on 12th of October 2006 directing that the District Collector shall decide the mater. 3. Accordingly, the District Collector considered the matter and issued Ext.P10 order dated 21/11/07 directing that the property shall be mutated in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently, on 17/11/2008, again Ext.P11 order was issued in the name of the District Collector directing that the mutation is possible only on the execution of an exchange deed. It is complaining that Ext.P11 is directly in conflict with Ext.P10, the writ petition was filed. WPC No. 15459/09 :2 : 4. During the pendency of this writ petition, pointing out the inconsistency between Exts.P10 and P11, it is seen that the petitioner herself has filed Ext.P13 before the District Collector, a copy of which has been produced along with IA 14713/10. Orders have not been passed on the said representation. Now that the petitioner herself has brought the inconsistency between Exts.P10 and P11 before the District Collector by filing Ext.P13 representation, I feel the grievance of the petitioner will be redressed if the District Collector considers Ext.P13. Accordingly, the writ petition will stand disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P13 with notice to the petitioner and the 5th respondent. This shall be done at any rate within 8 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition and the IA referred to above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp