IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 8845 of 2009(A)
1. GILBERT PRINCE, S/O.LATE PALLAYAN,
... Petitioner
2. AJANTHAKUMARI, W/O.GILBERT PRINCE,
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
... Respondent
2. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR,
3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
4. K.SIVARAJAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :19/03/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 8845 OF 2009 (A)
=====================
Dated this the 19th day of March, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Petitioners claim ownership over 6.75 cents of land covered
by Exts.P1 to P3 documents. According to the petitioners, soon
after the property was purchased, they applied for effecting
mutation in their favour, acceptance of tax and also for
measurement of the property. It is stated that there was no
response on the part of the 3rd respondent and therefore they
filed Ext.P5 before the 1st respondent. Ext.P5 was forwarded by
the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent, who in turn called for a
report from the 3rd respondent. Petitioner submits that on enquiry
with the 3rd respondent, it was informed that the report was
submitted to the 2nd respondent. Still there was no progress on
the application made and therefore petitioner moved the 2nd
respondent by filing Ext.P7. Even to Ext.P7, there was no
response and it is in these circumstances, the writ petition has
been filed.
2. If as stated by the petitioner, property has been
purchased by them, final orders on their application for effecting
WPC 8845/09
:2 :
mutation, acceptance of tax and for measurement has to be
passed.
3. Now that according to the petitioners, the proceedings
are now pending before the 2nd respondent before whom Ext.P7
representation has been made, I direct the 2nd respondent to
consider and pass orders on Ext.P7. This shall be done, as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 8 weeks of
production of a copy of this judgment.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp