IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 23RD MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 15651 of 2003(L) ------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------- 1. GRACIOUS, S/O. LATE XAVIER, AGED 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHULIKKAL HOUSE, C.C.No.14/1469, KOCHI-5. 2. KUNJUMOL ALIAS REETHAMA, AGED 43, RESIDING AT CHULIKKAL HOUSE, C.C.No.14/1469, KOCHI-5. BY MR.G.SUBRAMANIAN, ADVOCATE. MR.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TALUK OFFICE BUILDING, FORT KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. ANOY C.I., CHULIKKAL HOUSE, KOCHI - 5. 3. THE TAHASILDAR, KOCHI TALUK, TALUK OFFICE BUILDING, KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY MS. SMITHA SUKUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 & 3 MR.V.EAPEN MATHAI, ADVOCATE, FOR R2 MR.MATHAI EAPPEN VETTATH, ADVOCATE, FOR R2 MS.REKHA VASUDEVAN, ADVOCATE, FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 15651/2003 Order on I.A.No.101/2003 in WP(C).No. 15651/2003 Closed. 12.02.2009 Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE. A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 : COPY OF the PURCHASE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY LAND TRIBUNAL DTD 29.9.1977. EXT. P2 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN A.S.No.8/1997 OF the SUB COURT, KOCHI DTD. 14.11.1997. EXT. P3 : COPY OF THE DECREE IN S.A. No.505/2000 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DTD. 9.10.02. EXT. P4 : COPY OF THE ORDER OF the 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 26.8.2002. 2nd RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT. R2(a) : COPY OF JUDGMENT IN O.S. No.53 OF 1995. EXT. R2(b) : COPY OF the F.I.R IN JFCM No.ii OF KOCHI CRIME No.159/99. EXT. R2(c) : COPY OF THE REPORT OF the TAHSILDAR TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DTD. 24.3.2000. // True Copy // P.A. to Judge. smp S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.15651 OF 2003 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioners are challenging Ext.P4 order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi whereby the mutation effected by the Tahsildar, Kochi, in respect of the property in question in favour of the petitioners has been cancelled. The learned counsel for the petitioners is absent. 2. On a reading of Ext.P4, I find that the reason for cancellation of the mutation is that the certificate of purchase obtained by the petitioners is bogus. From Ext.P4, I find that the petitioners themselves admitted before the Revenue Divisional Officer that the certificate of purchase is bogus. If that is correct, then the cancellation of mutation cannot be faulted. The question as to whether the certificate of purchase is bogus or not is a question of fact. Against Ext.P4, the petitioners also have an alternate remedy by way of appeal/revision as provided under the Transfer of Registry Rules, which they have not availed of for W.P.(c)No.15651/2003 2 a decision on the question of fact of validity of the certificate of purchase, which question can be decided only by taking evidence, which cannot be done in a writ petition. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.15651/2003 3