C P PARAMESWARAN PILLAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) According to the petitioner, he is the title holder of the property covered by Exts.P1 documents. It is stated that mutation in his favour has been cancelled by the 3rd respondent and that mutation has been effected in favour of the 5th respondent. It is stated that complaining of the above, invoking the provisions of Rule 18 of the Transfer of Registry Rules, the petitioner has filed Ext.P5 complaint before the District Collector.

(2.) Ext.P5 complaint does not give the impression that this is an application filed under Rule 18 of the Transfer of Registry Rules. On the other hand, this apparently is a complaint against Subordinate Officers of the Revenue Department, which cannot be included in a statutory application.

(3.) For that reason and having regard to the fact that the petitioner has an alternate statutory remedy available, I decline to entertain the writ petition. However, I direct that it will be open to the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the District Collector invoking his powers under the provisions of Rule 18 of the Transfer of Registry Rules, in which event, the District Collector shall take appropriate action in the matter. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with the application to the District Collector for compliance. This writ petition is disposed of as above.