K.J.Thomas vs The Joint Registrar Of … on 2 August, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RP No. 1152 of 2006(E)


1. K.J.THOMAS, SON OF CHACKO JOSEPH,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. DR. SUSAMMA JOHN, -DO-.

                        Vs



1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE ERNAKULAM CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.THANKAPPAN

 Dated :02/08/2007

 O R D E R
                           K.THANKAPPAN, J.
                      ----------------------------------------
                           R.P. NO. 1152 OF 2006
                                        IN
                        W.P.(C)NO.16849 OF 2006
                      ----------------------------------------

                   Dated this the 2nd day of August, 2007

                                   O R D E R

This Review Petition is filed by the petitioners in the Writ Petition.

As per the judgment dated 11.7.2006, this Court directed the second

respondent to consider Ext.P2 representation filed by the petitioners as

expeditiously as possible by conveying or registering the documents

relating to the property in question within a reasonable time, at any rate

within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The

second respondent was also directed to consider Ext.P3 letter of the first

respondent. Subsequent to the above direction, notice was served on the

legal heirs of Sri. P.K. Paul, the original allottee of the plot in question by

publishing the same in Rashtradeepika, Ernakulam edition.

2. This Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the review

petitioners, learned counsel for the second respondent and the learned

Government Pleader.

R.P.NO.1152/2006 2

3. Admittedly, as per the judgment dated 25.10.2005 in A.S. No.698

of 1996, the petitioners and the legal heirs of the original allottee had

agreed to compromise the matter and on the basis of the compromise

suggested, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. Now, it is reported

that the second respondent has received the entire amount relating to the

plot in question. Hence, there is no legal bar for the second respondent to

convey the property in question in the name of the petitioners.

4. In the above circumstances, the second respondent is directed to

comply with the direction issued by this Court as early as possible, at any

rate within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is

made clear that the second respondent is entitled to any amount due from

the petitioners outstanding in the account of the original allottee.

The Review Petition is disposed of with the above clarification.

(K.THANKAPPAN, JUDGE)

sp/

R.P.NO.1152/2006 3