IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2011 / 31ST ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 20028 of 2011(C) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- ANTONY, S/O.LATE CHACKO, AGED 72 YEARS, POTHACHERI HOUSE, ATTUVATHALA VILLAGE, KAINAKARI P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN, SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN, SRI.GEORGE MATHEW, SRI.DIPU JAMES, SMT.K.V.RAMYA. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KAINAKARI SOUTH VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 501. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.M.H. HANILKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 20028 of 2011(C) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29/07/2009 IN O.S. NO.292/2009 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ALAPPUZHA. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT NO.5200124 DATED 05/03/2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 26/05/2011 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3(a): COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATED 27/05/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 20028 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is aggrieved by the endorsement made on Ext.P2 tax receipt that the property mentioned therein cannot be alienated. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner the reason for such endorsement is the pendency of OS No.292/09 on the file of the Additional Munsiff Court, Alappuzha. 2. Referring to Ext.P1 judgment of the Civil Court, petitioner submits that the suit was one filed by him and that the same has been decreed in his favour. It is stated that the disposal of the suit as above has already been brought to the notice of the 2nd respondent by Ext.P3 and inspite of it, necessary corrections have not been carried out in the records. 3. Going by the contents of Ext.P2, there is substance in what the petitioner says. 4. Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that the 2nd respondent has not responded to Ext.P3 so far, I direct the 2nd respondent to take action on Ext.P3 in the light of Ext.P1 judgment of the Civil Court and on further enquiry which he may WPC No. 20028/11 :2 : deem necessary. This the 2nd respondent shall do at any rate within 6 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp