IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 28177 of 2011(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- RAJANEESHKUMAR.R.G, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAPANICKER, `RAJ BHAVAN', THAIKOTTAL, PALLICKACHIRA P.O., PAIPADU MURI, PAIPADU VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS SMT.S.SIKKY SMT.LIJI KUTTAPPAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, CHANGANACHERRY-686 101. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED SHAH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.28177/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1468/1/08 OF THENGANA SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, DATED 22.4.2008. EXT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR EFFECTING MUTATION DT 23.9.11 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 28177 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 28th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner says that on the strength of Ext.P1 sale deed in his favour, he has acquired title over 6 ares of property comprised in R.S.No.326/6 of Paipadu Village. According to him, by Ext.P2 application dated 23/9/11 produced along with IA No.18782/11, he has sought mutation of the property in his name. It is stated that orders on Ext.P2 have not been passed for the reason that recovery proceedings against his vendor is pending. 2. Relying on the judgment of this Court in Thulasibhai v. State of Kerala (2010(4) KLT 215), counsel submits that the pendency of recovery proceedings should not stand in the way of the authorities in considering the application for mutation. It is true that in the judgment cited above, this Court has held that the pendency of revenue recovery proceedings against the property is no reason to decline mutation sought for by an applicant. 3. Therefore, irrespective of the pendency of the proceedings, if Ext.P2 application made by the petitioner has been received and is pending, the respondent has to consider the WPC No. 28177/11 :2 : same in accordance with law. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing the respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 application, if such application made by the petitioner has been received and is pending in the light of the observations made herein above. Orders shall be passed at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp