IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 4204 of 2010(A)
1. PASTER BINU JOHN, AGED 36 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. V.D.PATHROSE, S/O.DANIEL,
... Respondent
2. V.D.JOY, S/O.DANIEL,
3. THE THASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE,
4. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR,
For Petitioner :SRI.ESM.KABEER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :23/03/2010
O R D E R
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
----------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No. 4204 OF 2010
-----------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF MARCH, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner herein purchased 16 cents of property in
Sy.No.679/1/15 (Re.Survey No.227/19 of Puthuppalli Village)
from one Michel George as per document No.859/05 under valid
consideration. The vendor had purchased the property from one
of the sharers Shri V.D.Chacko as per partition deed
No.328/1992 of S.R.O., Puthuppally. Mutation was effected in his
favour.
2. The petitioner constructed a residential house in the
property and the Grama Panchayat has given Door No.IX/58 to
the house also. The petitioner is now residing at Thiruvalla after
leasing out the above house.
3. The petitioner has received a notice as per Exhibit P5
from the 4th respondent stating that an appeal was received from
respondents 1 and 2 and some others against the cancellation of
mutation. Accordingly, the petitioner filed Exhibit P6 reply in the
matter. Again he was issued a notice dated 4.1.2010 directing
W.P.(C)No.4204/10 -2-
him that if he did not appear on 10.2.2010 and submit his
objections, the mutation effected will be cancelled. It is the case
of the petitioner that even though the petitioner had approached
the 4th respondent to explain the real facts, he threatened to
cancel the mutation, even without considering and examining the
records.
4. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner filed
this Writ Petition. This Court passed the following interim order
on 15.2.2010.
” Notice on admission.
The petitioner contends that even though request
was made pursuant to Exhibit P7 notice, no details as
to the complaint, including the copy of the complaint
in the matter have not been furnished by the
respondent. Therefore, it is submitted that the
petitioner was denied an effective opportunity to
contest the proceedings before the Additional
Tahsildar. There will be a direction to the 4th
respondent to furnish to the petitioner copies of the
complaint filed by the respondents 1 and 2 and to
grant sufficient time to file objections before taking a
final decision. The petitioner will produce a copy of
W.P.(C)No.4204/10 -3-
this order before the 4th respondent.”
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that in tune with the directions issued, the petitioner
was furnished all the documents with regard to the filing of the
appeal. Therefore, what remains is only the hearing of the
appeal. Hence, there will be a direction to the 4th respondent to
take a decision on the appeal, after hearing the petitioner and
other parties in the appeal including respondents 1 and 2 herein,
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy
of this judgment.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
JUDGE
dsn