IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 4TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 24972 of 2011(V) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------ K.SAMEER, SON OF A.M. KHALID, THENAMMAKKAL HOUSE, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SMT.SMITHA GEORGE RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF VIGILANCE AND ANTI- CORRUPTION BUREAU, DIRECTORATE OF VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM-686 001. 4. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, KOTTAYAM-686 001. 5. MR.T.S.ABDUL SALAM, THENAMMAKKAL, POOTHAKUZHI, KANJIRAPPALLY, PIN-686 507, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.M.J.RAJASSHREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 24972 of 2011(V) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT DT.15.1.2010 BETWEEN ONE SHAJIMON AND THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF PETITION DT.19.3.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE ln ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).24972/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 26th day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that his grandfather late Sri. C.Saidumohammed Rawther had extensive properties and that there are several disputes, among the children of the said Saidumohammed Rawther, which are pending before the Civil Courts. It is stated that in order to defeat the rights of some of the legal heirs, the fifth respondent herein had entered into an agreement with strangers for the sale of the lands disproportionately at a low value. Sale did not materialise and that again is the subject matter of Civil Suits. During the pendency of the Suit, the fifth respondent has arrested to effect sale of some of the lands, which is alleged to be grossly undervalued. Making allegation of undervaluation with the involvement of the Sub Registrar, who has registered the documents and arraying not only the fifth respondent but also few others, petitioner made Ext.P2 complaint before the first respondent and thereafter filed this writ petition with the following prayer:- “To issue a writ of Mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 4 to immediately commence W.P.(C).24972/11 2 an enquiry into Ext.P2 petition submitted by the petitioner complaining of undervaluation, defrauding etc., committed by the 5th respondent and find out who are involved in the same and to take action against them to safeguard the interests of the State.” 2. Essentially what the petitioner alleges is that despite having receipt of Ext.P2, the first respondent is remaining inactive and therefore the first respondent may be directed to take appropriate action. 3. In my view, having regard to the law laid by the Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P & Others (2008 (2) SCC 409), the remedy available to the petitioner is to move the appropriate Court which has the jurisdiction in the matter and a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is misconceived. Writ petition is dismissed accordingly. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs