Tony Antony vs The Village Officer on 15 January, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 29010 of 2008(C)


1. TONY ANTONY, AGED 24 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MEENAD VILLAGE,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.S.BIJU

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :15/01/2009

 O R D E R
                        ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                         ---------------------------
                      W.P.(C) No. 29010 of 2008
                     ------------------------------------
                 Dated this the 15th day of January, 2009

                               JUDGMENT

The prayer in this writ prayer is to direct the first respondent to

pass orders on Exhibit P1. Exhibit P1 is an application made by the

petitioner for effecting mutation of the property obtained by him from

one Mrs. Santhakumari. Reply to Exhibit P1 has been given by Exhibit

P5, stating that application made by the additional 5th respondent for

rectification of certain alleged mistakes in the survey records are

pending before the additional 4th respondent and therefore, the

mutation sought for by the petitioner can be effected only after those

proceedings are concluded.

Learned Government Pleader also on instruction confirms that

proceedings vide File No. SY 3 – 19201/03 is pending before the 4th

respondent. From the above, it is obvious that on the application of the

additional 5th respondent, proceeding are pending before the additional

4th respondent. In view of this, it is premature to consider the

application of the petitioner for effecting mutation. In such

W.P.(C) No. 29010 /2008
2

circumstances, only possible order that the petitioner can seek is to

direct the additional 4th respondent to conclude the proceedings

initiated at the instance of the additional 5th respondent on an

expeditious basis and depending upon the order to further direct the

first respondent to consider his request for effecting mutation of the

property that he purchased on 15/5/2008.

In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of with the

following directions;

1. The additional 4th respondent shall, with notice to the

petitioner and additional 5th respondent, conclude the

proceedings initiated at the instance of additional 5th

respondent (File No. SY 3 – 19201/03) as expeditiously as

possible at any rate within one month of production of

copy of this judgment.

2. It is directed that on the basis of the order to be passed by

the additional 4th respondent, it will be open to the

petitioner to approach the second respondent, in which

case, the second respondent shall pass consequential

W.P.(C) No. 29010 /2008
3

orders on the request of the petitioner for effecting the

mutation of the property that he has purchased vide sale

deed executed on 15/05/2008.

It is clarified that, during the course of enquiry before

the additional 4th respondent, it will be open to the

petitioner and additional 5th respondent to produce any

documents, which they consider relevant for the enquiry.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

scm