IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2011 / 7TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 23398 of 2011(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.C.ASHOK KUMAR,KALLARAYIL HOUSE, R/O.PURAKKATTU VADAKUMBHAGOM,CHIRAKADAVU, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.DINNY THOMAS SRI.ALBERT V.JOHN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,KOTTAYAM, PIN-686001. 2. TAHSILDAR,TALUK OFFICE,KANJIRAPPALLY, PIN-685567. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER,CHIRAKKADAVU, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,PIN-686519. SR GP SMT.M.J.RAJASHREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 23398 of 2011 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.261 OF 93 EXT.P2- TRUE COPY PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).27071 OF 2008 EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.8.09 EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 24.8.09 EXT.P6- TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN I.A.1090/2009 IN A.S.79/2009 EXT.P7- TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN A.S.79/2009 EXT.P8- TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 18.1.11 EXT.P9- TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT (True copy) P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).23398/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 29th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner claims to be the owner of 2.4 acres of land as per Gift deed executed in Document No.1060/86 of S.R.O Kanjirapally. It is stated that in the Thandaper register, O.S.No.261/1993 of the Munsiffs Court, Kanjirapally, has been shown as pending. It is his case that the Suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner as per Ext.P1 and that the judgment has been confirmed by Ext.P6 order and P7 judgment in A.S.No.79/2009 of the Sub Court, Pala. It is stated that despite Exts.P6 and P7 have become final, the entry regarding the pendency of the Suit remains as such and therefore the petitioner sought correction by filing Exts.P8 and P9 representations to respondents 2 and 3. It is also the petitioner's submission that the third respondent has informed him that he is awaiting for orders from the second respondent in the matter. It is at that stage, the writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:- (i). A writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents to delete the entry in the thandaper register as well as in the tax receipts regarding the pendency of A.S.No.79/2009 of Sub Court, Pala in respect of W.P.(C).23398/2011 2 property of the petitioner as requested in Exts.P8 and P9 forthwith. (ii). A writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing the third respondent to issue tax receipt in respect of the property of the petitioner without the endorsement regarding the pendency of A.S.No.79/2009 of Sub Court, Pala as requested in Ext.P8 representation. 2. Evidently therefore, the case of the petitioner is that the applications made by him for correction of entry in the Thandaper register are pending before respondents 2 and 3 and the third respondent is awaiting orders from the second respondent to deal with the representations. Such being the factual background, I direct the second respondent before whom Ext.P9 representation is pending, to consider the same and pass orders thereon. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition. Once orders are passed as above, necessary consequential orders will also be passed by the third respondent without further delay. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs