IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2011 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1933 WA.No. 388 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.6888/2011 Dated 07/03/2011 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ SUDHEER, 787, KILIYANVILAKAM, KANNAMANGALAM, VAKKOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR SMT.ANITHA RAVINDRAN SMT.S.MEERA SMT.M.G.AISHWARYA RESPONDENT(S): / RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KADAKAMPALLY VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-691 533. 4. ST.SEBASTIAN'S CHURCH, CHERUVAIKKAL, NEAR AIRPORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-691 533. MR.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. .................................................................... W.A. No.388 of 2011 .................................................................... Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2011. J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. This Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge declining to grant relief to the petitioner which was by way of mandamus to the 3rd respondent to effect mutation of the property based on documents of title and possession certificate. The case of the appellant is that an extent of 1 acre, 23.49 cents of land was purchased by him in 2008. The property appears to be adjacent to the property of the 4th respondent and a civil suite between the petitioner and the 4th respondent or the predecessor pertaining to the boundary and the extent of land, and also on alleged trespass, is stated to be pending in Civil Court. The learned Single Judge took the view that until the suit is disposed of, mutation cannot be effected. 2. Prima facie, we cannot accept the findings of the learned Single Judge because mutation can be effected based on documents of title and possession certificate. However, if declaration of title or W.A.No.388/2011 2 recovery of possession or fixation of boundary by the Civil Court happens to be not in tune with the mutation effected by the Village Officer, the same is liable to be changed based on the judgment or decree of the Civil Court of the competent jurisdiction. We do not think there can be any objection on the part of the 4th respondent for effecting mutation in favour of the appellant based on documents of title and possession certification subject to the result of the suit pertaining to the land involved pending before the Civil Court. Accordingly, we proceed to dispose of this Writ Appeal by issuing appropriate direction to the 3rd respondent without issuing notice to the 4th respondent because in this judgment, we do not hold anything against the 4th respondent with regard to the rights claimed by them. The Writ Appeal is accordingly disposed of vacating the judgment of the learned Single Judge but with a direction to the 3rd respondent to effect mutation based on the application filed by the appellant after hearing him and the 4th respondent and after conducting a local inspection. If required, the Village Officer will measure the property and mark the boundaries, so that if the same W.A.No.388/2011 3 helps to settle the civil dispute pending before the Civil Court, the appellant as well as the 4th respondent can withdraw the suit after the Village Officer passes orders on the appellant's application, after verifying the facts. However if there is no settlement, mutation effected will be subject to civil court judgment, and based on the judgment, changes should be effected in the mutation effected now. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) jg