IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2011 / 22ND ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 27225 of 2011(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SAJI JOSEPH, S/O.;JOSEPH, CHEMMANPALLIL, KURUPPANTHARA, MANJOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE,VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-PIN-686 141. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MANJOOR,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-PIN-686603. 3. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (SURVEY DEPARTMENT), OFFICE OF THE SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS OFFICE, CHLAKKUNNU, KOTTAYAM-686 141. GP MOHAMMED SHAH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 27225 of 2011 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.1436/2008 OF SRO, KADUTHURUTHY EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER BY HIS FATHER SRI.JOSEPH EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE NO.169/2010 DATED 27.1.2010 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MANJOOR EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.6.2011 MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 16.6.2011 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS FURNISHED ON 29.7.2011 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN RESPONSE TO AN APPLICATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER ON 29.7.2011 (True copy) P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).27225/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 14th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner claims to be the owner of 21.24 Ares of land in R.S.No.709/2 of Manjoor Village in Vaikom Taluk. The case of the petitioner is that initially in the Basic Tax Register, the property was shown as “Purayidam” and that subsequently, the said entry was corrected as “Nilam”. It is stated that when this correction was noticed, he made Ext.P3 representation to the first respondent requesting for restoration of the classification of land as “Purayidam”. On that representation, the first respondent obtained Ext.P4 report from the Village Officer. The complaint of the petitioner is that thereafter, there has not been any progress in the matter. It is with this grievance this writ petition has been filed. 2. From the facts noticed above, it is clear that the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3 are still pending before the first respondent. Therefore, I direct that the first respondent will consider Ext.P3 in the light of Ext.P4 and other relevant records and orders thereon will be passed. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at W.P.(C).27225/11 2 any rate, within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs