IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2011 / 6TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 10686 of 2011(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. T.MATHEW, ANSI BHAVAN, CHERUVAKAL , ELAMAD VILLAGE,KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM. 2. SMT.LEELAMMA,DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM 690 013. 2. RE-SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, ANCHAL PO, KOLLA, 690 013. 3. THE TAHSILDAR,KOTTARAKKARA,KOLLAM-691532. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,VILLAGE OFFICER, ELAMAD (VIA),AYOOR , KOLLAM-691583. GOVT.PLEADER SMT.RAJASHREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.10686/11 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.5 DATED 1.1.1985 OF OYOOR SUB REGISTRY OFFICE. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.106 DATED 15.1.1996 OF OYOOR SUB REGISTRY OFFICE IN FAVOUR OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28.7.2009 SUBMITTED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED from the OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28.5.2010. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ADVOCATE NOTICE DATED 16.3.2010. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 21.3.2009. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT WITH THE COPY TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 30.4.2011. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 10686 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 28th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T According to the petitioners, by virtue of Exts.P1 and P2, sale deed and settlement deed, they acquired title over 77.95 cents of property. However, mutation in respect of the entire extent has not been effected. On the other hand, tax has been accepted only in respect of 14.5 ares. Seeking mutation of the entire extent of the property and to accept tax in relation to the same, petitioners have filed Ext.P7 application under the Transfer of Registry Rules. Orders have not been passed on that either. It is in these circumstances the writ petition is filed. 2. At present, I am inclined to think that the grievance of the petitioners will be redressed if the 3rd respondent passes orders on Ext.P7, so that, if aggrieved, petitioners can work out their remedies under the Transfer of Registry Rules itself. 3. In that view, I direct the 3rd respondent to pass orders on Ext.P7. This the 3rd respondent shall do as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this WPC No. 10686/11 :2 : judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp