(1.) GRIEVANCE of the petitioner is with regard to the rejection of the claim for effecting mutation, in respect of the property covered by Ext. P1 title deed. The sequence of events as narrated in the writ petition shows that, the property scheduled in Ext. P1, when at the hands of the erstwhile owner, finds a place in the revenue records as having suffered mutation and the predecessor in title was enjoying the said property also paying the basic tax, as borne by Ext. P2. It was the said property that was purchased by the petitioner as per Ext. P1 in April 2012 and he applied for effecting mutation in June 2012. Pursuant to the application preferred by the petitioner before the RDO, the matter was sought to be enquired into, which led to Ext. P4 report submitted by the concerned Revenue authorities, wherein the actual nature of the property has been certified, to the effect that it is lying as a 'dry land', where a residential building is also stated as situated. Existence of several buildings situated nearby and the availability of rubber trees having more than 20 years are also pointed out. Referring to the said report, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 16911/12, which culminated in Ext. P5 judgment, whereby the second respondent was directed to consider and pass appropriate orders with reference to Ext. P4 report herein (which was produced as Ext. P2 in the said case). The petitioner produced a copy of the judgment along with Ext. P6 submission before the second respondent and after considering the same, Ext. P7 order dated 08.10.2012, came to be passed in the following words :
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext. P7 has been passed by the second respondent in total disregard to the contents of Ext. P4 report and the relevant provisions of law.