IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2011 / 16TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 18336 of 2011(N) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- ROSILY, W/O.LATE AMBROSE, KOZHIKKANAM KARAYIL, 2ND DIVISION, ELAPPARA VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.NOBLE MATHEW SMT.SIMLA PRABHAKARAN SRI.ARUN ALEX RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 603. 2. THE SUB REGISTRAR, SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE PEERMADE, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 603. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, PEERMADE TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 603. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ELAPPARA VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 501. 5. SANKARALINGAM, KOZHIKKANAM KARAYIL, 2ND DIVISION, ELAPPARA VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 501. 6. JAI MON, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.APPAI, KOZHIKKANAM KARAYIL, 2ND DIVISION, ELAPPARA VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 501. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.RAJASHREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 18336/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD NO.IDK LD00250089 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER. P2: COPY OF DISABILITY CERTIFICATE NO.673101 DATED 13/10/2010 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER. P3: COPY OF THE PATTA NO.LA 120/99/ELP DATED 31/10/2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, TAHSILDAR, UNDER RULE 9 (2) OF THE KERALA LAND ASSIGNMENT RULES, 1964, IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. P4: COPY OF THE TAX RFECEIPT NO.38459 DATED 18/02/2010 ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. P5: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 23/06/2011 SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT, SUB REGISTRAR BY THE PETITIONER. P6: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 23/06/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE TO THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PEERMADE POLICE STATION. P7: COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 30/06/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT, DISTRICT COLLECTOR. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs ANTONY DOMINIC, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.18336 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of July, 2011. J U D G M E N T In this writ petition the petitioner seeks to prevent respondents 2 and 3 from effecting mutation of the property based on the application of the 6th respondent, in whose favour document of sale has been executed by the 5th respondent. The case of the petitioner is that the 5th respondent has assigned the property which belongs to the petitioner and that the 5th respondent has no marketable title for executing the sale. It is on that basis, the petitioner seeks to prevent mutation of the property as stated above. 2. But fact remains that the 5th respondent has executed the sale deed in favour of the 6th respondent. Even as on date nobody has questioned the sale deed executed by the 5th respondent in favour of the 6th respondent. In such circumstances, if mutation is sought by the 6th respondent, in law, that could not be prevented. 3. Therefore I am unable to grant the relief sought for in this writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE