IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 10TH OCTOBER 2011 / 18TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 20870 of 2011(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ RAJAMMA,AGED 74 YEARS, D/O.LATE PADMANABHAN, VARUVILA HOUSE, P0OTHAKKULAM VILLAGE AND POST, KOLLAM TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB SMT.RAJI.P.JOY RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE, KOLLAM-691001. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,POOTHAKKULAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691001. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,KOLLAM-691001. 4. ANITHA, AGED 38 YEARS, D/O.RAJAMMA, VARUVILA HOUSE, POOTHAKKULAM VILLAGE AND POST KOLLAM TALUK-691001. R1 – R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. GEORGE VADAKKEL. R4 – BY ADVS. SRI.ALEX N.MATHEW (KOLLAM) SRI.H.RAMANAN SRI.JAMES JOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SCL. WP(C).No. 20870 of 2011(G). APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE CANCELLATION DEED NO.540/2010 EXECUTED AND REGISTERED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE SRO PARAVUR. P2: COPY OF PETITIONER'S LETTER DATED NIL SUBMITTED BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 9.4.2010 OF 1ST RESPONDENT COMMUNICATED TO PETITIONER. P4: COPY OF PETITIONER'S REGISTERED APPLICATION DATED 31.5.2011 FORWARDED TO 1ST RESPONDENT. P5: COPY OF PETITIONER'S LETTER DATED 4.7.2011 FORWARDED TO 3RD RESPONDENT. P6: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.4.2011 IN W.P.(C) NO.11194/2011 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE SCL. ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).20870/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 10th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT The prayer sought in the writ petition is to direct the respondents to effect mutation of the property on the strength of Ext.P1. Ext.P1 is a document executed by the petitioner unilaterally cancelling Settlement Deed No.361/92 executed before the SRO, Paravur, settling the property in favour of the fourth respondent, her daughter. It was on the strength of Ext.P1, petitioner applied for getting the property mutated in her favour. That was declined and that led the writ petition to be filed. 2. Admittedly, Ext.P1 deed of cancellation is a unilateral one and the Settlement deed could not have been cancelled in that manner. This position has been clarified by the Apex Court in Thota Ganga Laxmi v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (2011 (3) KLT, 345 [SC] ). 3. If that be so, petitioner could not have sought mutation on the strength of Ext.P1. Therefore, the order of declining mutation on the strength of Ext.P1 could not be interfered with and the writ W.P.(C).20870/11 2 petition is rejected leaving open the other remedies that are available to the petitioner. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs