IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2011 / 14TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 19623 of 2011(C) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SIVAN S., S/O. CHUDALAI SWAMI, AGED 37 YEARS, SOORYA BHAVAN, MAVELIKUNNU, CHITHIRAPURAM P.O., ANACHAL, MUNNAR. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI-685 584. 3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DEVIKULAM, PIN-685 613. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, DEVIKULAM, (DISTRICT) IDUKKI, PIN-685 613. 5. VILLAGE OFFICER, KDH VILLAGE, MUNNAR, PIN-685 612. R1 TO R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.P.N. SANTHOSH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 19623 of 2011(C) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED DATED 16/06/2003. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PATTA NO.351 DATED 20/05/1999 ISSUED BY ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR DEVIKULAM. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY MUNNAR GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 22/03/2005. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 30133/2003 DATED 09/10/2003. EXT.P5(a): COPY OF THE ORDER IN THE REVIEW PETITION DATED 07/11/2003. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 08/07/2004. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 19623 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of August , 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that he is the assignee of 10 cents of land in Sy.No.843A of KDH Village. In support of this claim, petitioner relied on Ext.P1 settlement deed executed on 16.6.2003. According to the petitioner soon after the execution of the settlement deed, he applied for mutation of the property and this Court by Ext.P5 judgment dated 9.10.2003 in WPC 30133 of 2003 directed consideration of the said application. It is complaining that orders have not been passed so far, this writ petition is filed. 2. If it is the case of the petitioner that direction of this Court has not been complied with, his remedy is to initiate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act and not to file another writ petition. Be that as it may, W.P.(C) No. 19623 OF 2011 :2 : respondents had the responsibility to comply with the judgment, rather than taking refuge under the technical pleas. 3. Even according to the petitioner the aforesaid application was made in 2003 and the learned Government Pleader submits that, due to lapse of time the application could not be traced so far. 4. In such circumstances I direct that it will be open to the petitioner to make a fresh application and if any such application is made, the 5th respondent will take action thereon in accordance with law and orders shall be passed at any rate within six weeks thereafter. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/- [true copy] P.S. to Judge