ABRAHAM JOSEPH Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner contends that he is the owner in title and possession of property having an extent of One Acre situated in Resurvey No.253/44 of Kallamala Village. The above property was purchased by him from a certain Sali Varghese on the cover of Ext.P2 sale deed. He would refer to Ext.P7 and it is contended that mutation has been effected and he has been paying basic tax. While so, one Chinnan filed a petition before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ottappalam contending that the property which is purchased by the petitioner was appropriated fraudulently by the vendor of the petitioner from his father. The 2nd respondent issued direction to the 3rd respondent to conduct an enquiry and submit a report. Based on the directions issued by the 3rd respondent, the 4th respondent issued Ext.P9 and P10 orders prohibiting the petitioner from entering into his own property. The petitioner in the said circumstances submitted Ext.P12 representation before the 2nd respondent. His grievance is that no action is being taken by the 2nd respondent to conclude the proceedings. According to the petitioner, he is prevented from carrying out any agricultural activities in the property. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash Exts.P8, P9 and P10 and for a further direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass final orders in Ext.P12 representation submitted by him.

(2.) I have heard Sri. Anandan Pillai, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Bimal K.Nath, the learned Senior Government Pleader.

(3.) Sri. Anandan Pillari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the property was purchased by the petitioner by executing a valid sale deed and the mutation having been effected, there is no justification on the part of the respondents in prohibiting the petitioner from enjoying his property. According to the learned counsel, now that the petitioner has submitted Ext.P12 representation, his limited request is to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the same and take a decision on its merits.