IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2008 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 2134 of 2008(D) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- SMT. NESAN MANGALODAYAM, W/O SRI. P.S.SUNDAR, AGED 52, 13/8, VARTHAKAN VILLAI, BATHELPURAM, NEYOOR WEST, PIN-629803, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVT.(REVENUE), SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, NEYYATTINKARA. 4. THE FEDERAL BANK, CHEMPOOR, NEYYATTINKARA, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH R4 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE (MANACHIRACKEL) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.2134/2008 D APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PATTA ISSUED BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 3/10/2007 TO EXT.P3 SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 29/10/2007 FILED BEFORE THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DTD. 28/04/2007. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE LOCATION CERTIFICATE. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE. EXT.P7(A): COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 10/12/2007 SENT BY THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 2134 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: MARCH 31, 2008 JUDGMENT There are two prayers in this writ petition. One is to direct respondents 1 to 3 to take necessary action to reconstruct the patta issued to the petitioner in L.A.No.II/26/75 mentioned in Ext.P1 and issue copy of the same to the petitioner. 2. Petitioner submits that he was issued patta in the aforesaid land assignment case, but, however, the original of which has been lost. When he approached the 4th respondent bank for availing of a loan, the bank insisted on the production of the original patta and thereupon the petitioner applied for a copy of the patta. Then he was informed by Ext.P2 that the file itself has been completely destroyed due to lapse of time. When he sought information as to whether the file can be reconstructed and a patta issued, reply has been given in the negative by Ext.P9. It is in this background that the writ petition has been filed contending that it is the duty of the respondents in terms of Rule 22 of the Land WP(C) 2134/08 Page numbers Assignment Rules to have maintained the records. 3. It may be true that respondents Nos.1 to 3 are statutorily obliged to maintain the records, but in this case the fact remains that the file has been completely lost and the instruction to the learned Government Pleader is also to the same effect. In view of this, even if there is a lapse on the part of the respondents, this court will not be justified in directing the respondents to do something impossible. Therefore, the relief sought for by the petitioner to direct the respondents to reconstruct the patta cannot be granted in this writ petition. 4. The second prayer sought for by the petitioner is to direct the bank to grant the loan applied for on production of a declaration that the original patta mentioned in Ext.P1 is irrecoverably lost. If, in terms of the rules for granting loan, production of the original records is necessary, this court will not be justified in compelling the bank not to insist on production of the same. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-