IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2008 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1930 WA.No. 1064 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.37553/2007 Dated 08/01/2008 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER IN WP(C): ------------------------------------------------------ A. ANWAR HUSSAIN, S/O.AHAMMED HUSSAIN, KAITHAWARAM BUNGLOW, KANKATHU MUKKU, THIRUMULLAVARAM P.O., KOLLAM-691012. BY ADV. SRI.P.SIVARAJ RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS IN WP(C): -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, KOLLAM. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KOLLAM EAST VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 3. A. ABDUL SALAM, S/O.AHAMMED HUSSAIN, KAITHAWARAM BUNGLOW, KANKATHU MUKKU, THIRUMULLAVARAM P.O., KOLLAM-691012. 4. G. SOMAN, S/O. GOPAN, ROHINI, PALLIKKAL MURI, MYLAM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K. MEERA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss J.B. Koshy & P.N.Ravindran, JJ. -------------------------------------- W.A. No. 1064 of 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of June, 2008 Judgment Koshy,J. Appellant/Petitioner along with his brother owned a few plots of land. According to the petitioner, contrary to the understanding between him and his brother, his brother has sold his share in the property to fourth respondent. He has made Ext.P1 request to the first respondent not to change the thandaper in favour of the buyer and the prayer in this writ petition is to consider Ext.P1 representation and not to effect the change of thandaper without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Fourth respondent has purchased the property which is the share of his brother who is made as third respondent. If the petitioner has got any right over the property, it is for the petitioner to approach the civil court and as rightly held by the learned single Judge, the petitioner is not entitled to get a writ of mandamus from this Court for not effecting mutation . The writ petition was filed in 2007. He could have filed a civil suit much earlier. Without prejudice to the W.A.No. 1064/2008 2 right of the petitioner, if any to file a civil suit, this writ appeal is dismissed. J.B.Koshy Judge P.N.Ravindran Judge vaa W.A.No. 1064/2008 3 J.B. KOSHY AND P.N.RAVINDRAN,JJ. ------------------------------------- W.A No. 1064 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Judgment Dated:5th June, 2008