IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 8TH OCTOBER 2009 / 16TH ASWINA 1931 WA.No. 2485 of 2007 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.1594/2007 Dated 31/01/2007 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------- JAMES JOSEPH, KALAIKAL HOUSE, PUZHAVATHU KARA. CHANGANACHERRY VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, BY ADV. SRI.M.NARENDRA KUMAR SRI.R.SUDHIR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY MINISTRY OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. TAHSILDAR, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK, CHANGANACHERRY, 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, PAYIPAD VILLAGE CHANGANACHERRY. R1 TO R3 BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER, SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K. Basheer, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A. No.2485 of 2007 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT A.K.Basheer, J. The appellant/petitioner applied for effecting mutation or transfer of registry in respect of 29.87 ares of land and building therein, situated in RS No.442/2/6 of Payipad Village, Changanacherry Taluk, Kottayam District. However, the request was turned down by the revenue authorities on the ground that several cases and revenue recovery proceedings are pending against the said property, and therefore change of mutation case be considered only after those proceedings are over. Appellant was served with Ext.P4 communication issued by the Village Officer in this regard. The said communication was challenged before the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition. 2. The learned Single Judge after considering the matter found that the appellant/petitioner was not entitled to get any relief, especially since the order passed by the Tahsildar referred to in Ext.P4 was liable to be challenged in an appeal as provided under W.A.No.2485 of 2007 - 2 - the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the materials available on record, we do not find any reason to take a different view. It is evident from Ext.P4 that the Village Officer had communicated to the appellant the order passed by the Tahsildar on his request for change of mutation. Obviously it is not an order passed by the Village Officer as contended by the appellant. The appellant has not disputed before us that several civil suits and revenue recovery proceedings are pending against the property in question. If that be the position, the stand taken by the revenue authorities cannot be said to be irrational or illegal. 4. In that view of the matter we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. S.R.Bannurmath, Chief Justice A.K. Basheer, Judge vns