IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 32538 of 2009(J) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- E.N.CHANDRAN, CHAIRMAN, MALANADU EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST, REG.NO.208/05, ANCHAMPEEDIKA, KALLIYASSERI AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THASILDAR, TALIPARAMBA. 2. VALSAN MADATHIL, S/O.NARAYANAN, BUSINESS, ELAYAVOOR AMSOM, MUNDAYAD DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. DILEEP MOHAN, R2 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.32538/2009-J: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED NO.2350/2005 OF S.R.O, TALIPARAMBA. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 06/07/05 OF THE PAYMENT OF LAND REVENUE. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 08/12/2007 PASSED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 08/02/2008 PASSED BY MUNSIFF COURT, THALIPARAMBA. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 24/09/2008 IN I.A. 744/08. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DTD. 30/06/09 PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF COURT, TALIPARAMBA IN I.A. 913/09, 915/09, 914/09 AND 916/09. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 08/10/2009 PASSED BY R.1. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 15/10/2009 RECEIVED BY VILLAGE OFFICER FROM THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 04/11/2009 RECEIVED FROM THE R.1. BY THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 32538 OF 2009 ===================== Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T In respect of a property allegedly purchased by the petitioner by Ext.P1, mutation was effected in his favour. Subsequently, on the basis of an objection filed by the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P9 notice proposing to review the order of mutation in favour of the petitioner. It is challenging Ext.P9, the writ petition is filed. 2. The 2nd respondent now submits that aggrieved by the order of mutation in favour of the petitioner, 2nd respondent has filed an appeal as provided in Rule 18 of the Transfer of Registry Rules and that the said appeal is pending before the District Collector. 3. Admittedly, the Transfer of Registry Rules do not confer any power of review on the 1st respondent. Therefore, Ext.P9 notice issued on the basis of the objection filed by the 2nd respondent is unsustainable. In that view of the matter, Ext.P9 has to be quashed and I do so. 4. Be that as it may, if as stated by the 2nd respondent, he WPC No. 32538/09 :2 : has filed an appeal against the order passed by the 1st respondent and that appeal is pending before the District Collector, Kannur, it is directed that the District Collector will dispose of the appeal with notice to the parties and in accordance with law on the production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp