IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 30TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 36536 of 2009(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- A.T.JOHN, AGED 73, S/O.LATE THOMAS, AMAMTHURUTHIL HOUSE, KATHALIKKAD P.O., MANJALLOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE SRI.ADEEP ANWAR RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE MANJALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, MANJALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, VAZHAKKULAM, NEAR MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. THE SECRETARY, MANJALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MANJALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, VAZHAKKULAM, NEAR MUVATTUPUZHA. 4. P.A.GEORGE, S/O.IPPU, POTTAYIL HOUSE, KARIKKODE VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM FOR R2,3 SRI.K.JAJU BABU FOR R4 SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI FOR R4 GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 36536 OF 2009 (J) ===================== Dated this the 19th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The prayer sought in this writ petition is mainly for a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P11. 2. Ext.P11 is a representation made by the petitioner on 19/11/2009 requesting the 3rd respondent to accept from him tax in respect of the property mentioned therein. It would appear that in the register of the Panchayat, 4th respondent's name is presently shown as the owner of the property and on that basis, the 4th respondent has also paid tax and that it has been accepted. Such entry and payment of tax according to the 4th respondent is on the basis of the title, which he claims in respect of the property on the basis of document No.331/01, which even as per the averments in para 2 of the writ petition, has been executed by the petitioner as a sale deed in favour of the 4th respondent. 3. However, counsel for the petitioner submits that in order to get the sale deed set aside, he has filed OS No.102/02 WPC 36536/09 :2 : and that the suit is pending. It is also his contention that even after the execution of the documents, till 2006, the petitioner's name continued in the register as owner of the property and that he has been paying tax during all these years. It is contended that entering the name of the 4th respondent as owner of the property during the pendency of the suit is illegal, and therefore, his representation ought to be considered. It may be true that the petitioner's name was retained in the register even after the execution of the document NO.331/01 in favour of the 4th respondent. However, so long as Document No.331/01 remains valid, on the strength of the said document, it was always open to the 4th respondent to have sought change of name in his favour. Petitioner has no case that document has been held invalid so far. Therefore, respondents cannot be faulted for having entered the name of the 4th respondent as owner. 4. Therefore, as at present, the prayer sought for by the petitioner in Ext.P11 is misconceived and this Court will not be justified in passing an order directing consideration of Ext.P11, where the petitioner seeks to get the entry in the registers revised. However, this judgment is rendered taking into account WPC 36536/09 :3 : the facts prevailing as of now and depending upon the outcome of the suit and other proceedings which the petitioner has initiated against the 4th respondent, it will always be open to the petitioner to seek rectification in the register of the Panchayat. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp