IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 14TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 3577 of 2011(V) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- BIJU JOHNSON, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. LATE C.J.JOHNSON, CHALLACKAL HOUSE, KADAMANITTA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR GENERAL, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645. 3. SUB REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, KOZHENCHERRY-689 641, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, NARANGANAM, NARANGANAM P.O., PIN-689 642. 5. LISSY SHAJI, W/O. LATE SHAJI, PRACKATTU VALEL HOUSE, KADAMMANITTA (VIA), ANTHIYALANKAVU P.O., PIN-689 649, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 6. ABRAHAM PAULOSE, OLIYAPPURAM, KUTTANTHADATHIL HOUSE, MUVATTUPUZHA P.O., PIN-686 661. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSHKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.3577 of 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 3rd February, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner says that in O.S No.245/2009 now pending before the Sub Court, Pathanamthitta which is filed for setting aside sale deed No.1363/2004 of Kolencherry Sub Registry and sale deed No.1222/2008 of Kozhencherry Sub Registry., Fifth respondent had undertaken not to alienate one hectare and 99.60 Ares of property owned by her deceased husband. Petitioner further alleges that contrary to the alleged undertaking, the property has been alienated by the 1st respondent to the 6th respondent and steps are now being taken to effect changes in the revenue records. 2. According to the petitioner, coming to know of the same, he made Ext.P7 representation to the 4th respondent . It is stated that 4th respondent should be directed to consider the representation as and when any request for change in the revenue records is considered. 3. Petitioner has not produced any document before this Court to substantiate before the Trial court W.P (C) No.3577 of 2011 2 undertaking that has been allegedly made by the 5th respondent. 4. Be that as it may, now that the petitioner has made Ext.P7 representation before the 4th respondent, I direct that it will be open to the petitioner to produce the documents substantiating his aforesaid assertion and it is ordered that , 4th respondent will take cognizance of Ext.P7 also as and when any request is received for making changes in the revenue records concerning the aforesaid property. 5. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the contention raised and it is entirely for the 4th respondent to deal with the issue, in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE ma /True copy/ P.A to Judge