IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2011 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 33278 of 2011(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- NOUSHAD N.Y, S/O YOUSEF RAWTHER, NECHATTUKAROTTU HOUSE, KANGAZHA PO, PATHANAD, KOTTAYAM DT. BY ADV. SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY SMT.K.G.SAROJINI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM DT, KOTTAYAM 686001. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, CHANGANASSERY TALUK, CHANGANASSERY 686101. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KANGAZHA VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DT 686541. 5. T.K.JANARDANAN, S/OKRISHNAN, THEKKEPUTHUVALIL VEETTIL, KANGAZHA PO, KOTTAYAM DT 686541. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED SHAH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.33278/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.2887013 DT 20.7.11 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1575/2011 DATED 15.7.11 OF SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, KARUKACHAL. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 21.7.11 IN IANO.2019 OF 2011 IN OP N.943 OF 2011 BY THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANOOR. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIO DATED 25.7.11 TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT WITH COPY TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 4.8.11 IN WPC NO.21207 OF 2011 BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.160/11 DT 1.9.11 SENT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.H1-10450/11 DT 13.9.11 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 33278 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 13th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ext.P7 order passed by the Tahsildar exercising his powers under the Transfer of Registry Rules is under challenge. This order is appealable before the Revenue Divisional Officer in terms of Rule 18 of the said Rules. In view of the the availability of such an alternate remedy, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue that remedy, the writ petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp