IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 30TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 36018 of 2007(K) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. SHAKEELA, W/O.NAUSHAD, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, EDATHUMPARAMBU, PONKUNNAM P.O. 2. SHINYMOL, W/O.NASAR, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, EDATHUMPARAMBU, PONKUNNAM P.O. BY ADV. SRI.VIJU ABRAHAM SRI.JOY C. PAUL SRI.DOMINIC JOHNSON SMT.M.SRUTHY RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 2. THASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KANJIRAPILLY. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, CHIRAKKADAVU, PONKUNNAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.36018/07 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.2774 OF 2001 OF S.R.O.KANJIRAPILLY. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.6661/95. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DT.9.11.2007 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE BEARING NO.1093/2007/PV DT.24.11.2007 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN OS NO.190/70 DT.23.8.1976 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KANJIRAPILLY. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 11.11.93 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KANJIRAPILLY IN OS NO.67 OF 1990. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DT.22.8.06 IN WPC NO.18161/2003. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.12.4.2007 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT GRANTING TRANSFER OF REGISTRY. EXT.P9: TRUE COPYOF JUDGMENT DATED 13.11.2007 IN WP(C) NO.33307/07. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 36018 OF 2007 K ==================== Dated this the 19th day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T The grievance of the petitioner is against Ext.P4. 2. Ext.P4 is an application for effecting mutation in respect of 2.5 cents of land in Survey No.1155 of Chirakadavu village and it has been rejected on the basis that it is a puramboke land. Petitioner submits that on an earlier occasion, when the respondents raised this very contention, that issue was subject matter of OS 190/1970 filed by the predecessor in interest before the Munsiff's Court, Kanjirappally and that resulted in Ext.P5 judgment. It is also stated that in the said judgment, the Civil Court had declared the petitioner's predecessors title and that the judgment has become final. 3. Referring to Ext.P6 in respect of property in the neighbourhood, petitioner submits that mutation was ordered to be effected by Ext.P7 judgment of this court. Petitioner submits that in implementation of Ext.P7, by Ext.P8 order, respondents have effected mutation implementing Ext.P7. It is also WPC 36018/07 :2 : contended that in identical circumstances, yet another landlord had obtained Ext.P9 judgment of this court and that mutation was effected in that case also. 4. If as a matter of fact, the title to the property of the petitioner's predecessor was declared by a Civil Court in Ext.P5 judgment, that should give a quietus to the dispute. However, it is not clear as to whether these materials were produced before the 2nd respondent when he considered petitioner's application for effecting mutation. Therefore, quashing Ext.P4, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the 2nd respondent shall reconsider the application made by the petitioner in the light of Exts. P5 to P9 and pass appropriate orders on the application of the petitioner with notice to him. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE Rp