IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2011 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 33317 of 2011(L) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- THANKACHAN, AGED 47 YEARS S/O.LATE MADHAVAN, MADHAVA MANDIRATHIL MANGALAM MURI, ARATTUPUZHA VILLAGE ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 001. 2. THE TAHSILDAR KARTHIKAPPALLY, HARIPPAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 001. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER ARATTUPPUZHA , THRIKKUNNAPPUZHA VIA KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 001. R1 TO R3 BY ADV.SRI. MOHAMMED SHAH, GOVT.PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DG WP(C).No. 33317 of 2011(L) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE SALE DEED DT.8.7.02 OF THE SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, KEERIKAD. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE PREVIOUS TITLE DEED NO.2805/91 IN RESPECT OF PETITIONERS PROPERTY. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPTS SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF LAND TAX. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.5.10.2006 IN OS. 266/02 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, HARIPAD. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.28.2.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.8.12.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS - NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE DG ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 33317 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner and another person are the co-owners of 20 cents of land comprised in Re-Survey No.1/4 in Block 18 of Arattupuzha Village. He had made Ext.P7 application for mutation of the property. However, that application was not considered on account of pendency of Ext.P5 and P6 application. That application was not considered on pendency of OS 266/2002, before the Munsiff Court, Haripad. Subsequently, by Ext.P4, the suit has been dismissed and thereupon this writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to mutate the property and accept tax on that itself. 2. Further, from Ext.P5 and P6 itself, it is seen that the application was made to the 1st respondent and not to the 2nd respondent who is the competent authority under the Transfer of Registry Rules. Therefore, this Court would not be justified in passing orders directing 1st respondent to take action on W.P.C. No. 33317 OF 2011 -2- representation. However, having regard to the claim of the petitioner that he as a co-owner has title for 20 cents, I direct , it is open to the petitioner to make a fresh application to 2nd respondent, in which event, 2nd respondent shall consider the same and pass orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate immediately on receipt of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of writ petition before the 2nd respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. Kp/-