IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2009 / 12TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 31809 of 2008(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ILLIKKAL ANTHRU, ILLIKKAL HOUSE, P.O.KUTHUPARAMBA ,KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KUTHUPARAMBA MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,MUNICIPAL OFFICE, P.O.KUTHUPARAMBA ,KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. SECRETARY KUTHUPARAMBA MUNICIPALITY MUNICIPAL OFFICE,P.O.KUTHUPARAMBA , KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. T.V.SAHADEVAN, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, HO.NO.3/130,EDAKKAD PANCHAYATH, CHALA P.O.,KANNUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN FOR R3 SRI.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN FOR R3 SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH FOR R1,2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 31809 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a co-owner of the building situated in Survey No.20/2 of Kuthuparamba village. The said building and 33 cents of the land appurtenant thereto were leased out to the 3rd respondent as per Ext.P1 lease deed by the late father of the petitioner. The petitioner's contention is that after the death of the petitioner's father, the building and property devolved on the petitioner and his two brothers. However to his dismay, he finds that in the records of the 1st respondent Municipality, the 3rd respondent's name has been entered as the owner of the building. According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent is only a lessee and, the action of respondents 1 and 2 in entering the ownership of the building in the name of the 3rd respondent in the records of the Municipality is patently unsustainable. The petitioner, therefore, filed Ext.P8 petition before the 2nd respondent in the matter. The petitioner now confines his relief for a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P8 expeditiously. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the 2 learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality and the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. 3. In view of the nature of the dispute it is only appropriate that the 2nd respondent considers and passes orders on Ext.P8 expeditiously. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P8, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge