ANTONY R.R. Vs. ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, KANNAYANUR TALUK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to call for the records pertaining to Exhibits P4, P6 and P9 applications submitted by him before the statutory authorities under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and Exhibit P16 communication issued by the Public Information Officer, Village Officer, Kakkanad informing him that the records sought for by him are not available in the Village Office, Kakkanad; and to issue a writ directing the respondents to take action immediately on Exhibit P4 application submitted by the petitioner before the Public Information Officer, Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk dtd. 11/2/2009 and also to issue the certified copies of the documents mentioned therein, to the petitioner.

(2.) Basic facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: Petitioner is allegedly the owner of a property having an extent of 10 cents in Survey No. 449/1-2 of Thrikkakara South Village by virtue of Exhibit P1 patta bearing No. B6.LA.191/84 dtd. 8/4/1984 and Exhibit P2 order of assignment dtd. 8/4/1986. According to the petitioner, one Major P. Abraham has filed O.S No. 46 of 2009 against the petitioner and one K.J. Joseph before the Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam praying for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the petitioner from forcibly evicting them from the above-said property and also for a mandatory injunction directing the petitioner to put them back to the said property, evident from Exhibit P3, copy of the plaint. It is also pointed out that the aforesaid K.J. Joseph, who is the second defendant in the suit, has also filed O.S. No. 50 of 2009 against one P.T. Abraham, the father of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 46 of 2009, claiming title and possession over the property in question before the Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam, and both suits are pending consideration.

(3.) The sum and substance of the contention is that the proof with regard to the title of the property is one of the prime issues to be adjudicated by the civil court. Therefore, the petitioner preferred Exhibit P4 application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the Additional Tahsildar, respondent No.1, seeking certified copies of the documents relating to title. However, it was not issued to the petitioner and therefore, he preferred Exhibit P6 appeal before the Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk, second respondent, and Exhibit P9 appeal before the State Information Commission, Thiruvananthapuram, respondent No.3.