IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2008 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 18321 of 2004(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. ALEYAMMA JOHN, AGED 44 YEARS, W/O. JOHN, MURUPPEL PARAKKULATH HOUSE, VALIYAKAVU, VATTARAKKAYAM, MANNAMARUTHI, PAZHAVANGADI VILLAGE, RANNY. 2. JOHN. P., MURUPPEL PARAKKULATH HOUSE, VALIYAKAVU, VATTARKKAYAM, MANNAMARUTHI, PAZHAVANGADI VILLAGE, RANNY. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTD BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. TAHASILDAR, RANNY. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, PAZHAVANGADI, RANNY. 5. VARGHESE, MURUPPEL HOUSE, VATTARKKAYAM, MANNAMARUTHI, PAAZHAVANGADI VILLAGE, RANNY. GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO.493/90. P2: COPY OF THE DHANANISCHAYA DEED NO.491/90. P3: .DO. NO.640/90. P4: COPY OF JUDGMENT IN O.S. NO.54/02 DT.25.8.2003. P5: COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY R4 DT.17.6.2004. P6: COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY 1ST PETITIONER TO R4 DT.18.6.2004. P7: COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY R4 TO THE PETITIONER DT.18.6.2004. P8: COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY 1ST PETITIONER TO R4 DT.18.6.2004 AGAINST EXT.P7. P9: COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.31728/03 DT.30.10.03. P10: COPY OF JUDGMENT IN R.P. 931/03. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.18321 of 2004 .................................................................... Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2008. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The petitioners are challenging Ext.P7 issued by the Village Officer to consider request for effecting mutation of the property on application by the 5th respondent. The action taken by the Village Officer is pursuant to Ext.P10 judgment. On going through Ext.P10 we find that this court left open the claim for mutation to be decided by the Village Officer after hearing the objections of parties involved namely, the petitioners also. We do not know why the petitioners have hurried to this court instead of raising objection before the Village Officer against the claim of mutation by the 5th respondent. It is evident from Ext.P10 judgment that the dispute between the parties on land was settled through civil court orders. However, Government Pleader submitted that civil court has only delivered judgment in an injunction suit which may be only conclusive with regard to possession. When this W.P. was admitted, another learned Judge has referred the matter to the Division Bench thinking that the judgment of this court may lead to conflict of jurisdiction between the civil court and the 2 Village Officer. We do not think any such apprehension is justified now because it is clear from Ext.P10 judgment in R.P. No.931/2003 in W.P.(C) No.31728/2003 that the Village Officer was free to decide the matter based on title deeds, court orders and possession etc. If the mutation effected by the Village Officer is against the petitioners, it is always open to the petitioners to challenge the same before statutory authorities or in this court. Subject to petitioners' right to challenge the same, we close this W.P. leaving freedom to the petitioners to file objection before the Village Officer and to co-operate in the proceedings initiated by the 5th respondent before the Village Officer. The Village Officer is directed to pass orders after hearing all parties and after verifying records and after conducting enquiry, within three weeks from date of production of copy of this judgment by the petitioners. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge V.K.MOHANAN Judge pms