IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2011 / 28TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 26459 of 2011(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUDHAKARAN S/O.DHAMODHARAN, AGED 53 MULLIKKALA, MUSLIM STREET, KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.M.TRIPTEN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. VILLAGE OFFICER, PANAYAM VILLAGE OFFICE, PANAYAM, KOLLAM-691 601. 2. TAHSILDAR, KOLLAM TAHSILDAR OFFICE, KOLLAM-691001. GP SRI.MOHAMMED SHAH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 26459 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1. TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2243/91. EXHIBIT-P2. TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT OFFICE. (True copy) P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).26459/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 20th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner claims to have obtained a property covered by Ext.P1 Sale Deed. It is stated that he applied to the first respondent for mutation of the property. However, orders were not passed in the application and that led the petitioner to file this writ petition. Taking note of the pendency of the application for mutation filed by the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and pass orders on the application, if any, made by the petitioner for mutation of the property covered by Ext.P1 Sale Deed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs