K. S. THOMAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner along with two of his brothers are the owners of 40 cents of land in Old Sy.No.855/2, 854/4 and 854/10 of Koodal Village, Adoor Taluk, Pathanamthitta District. Properties were originally obtained by the father of the petitioner along with his brother in 1962 and later the properties got vested in the name of the petitioner and his brothers. When the petitioner's father attempted to construct a compound wall, dispute arose between the Revenue Authorities and him. He therefore, filed O.S No.135 of 1998 before the Munsiff Court, Adoor for declaration of title and mandatory injunction to restrain the Revenue Authorities from interfering with the construction of the compound wall on the eastern side of the property. The petitioner's father passed away during the pendency of the suit and thereafter, the petitioner and his two brothers got impleaded in the suit. Suit ended in dismissal. A.S.No.13 of 2002 was filed before the District Court, Pathanamthitta aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit. Appeal was allowed by judgment dtd. 30/1/2007. Operative portion of the judgment in A.S No.13 of 2002 reads as follows:

(2.) The petitioner submitted Ext.P3 request for effecting mutation on 24/10/2007. However, there was no action from the concerned authorities. This prompted the petitioner to submit application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to get information about the actions taken. He got a reply that the application was forwarded to Additional Tahsildar, Adoor. Again the petitioner submitted another application for information and got a reply that the application was placed before the Taluk Surveyor. The petitioner thereafter, approached Taluk Legal Services Committee in P.L.P. No.26 of 2011, which was closed since the Revenue Authorities did not turn up.

(3.) Several communications followed and in a reply given to the petitioner on 9/5/2012 by the State Public Information Officer and Additional Tahsildar (in-charge), Adoor, it was stated that legal opinion was sought for taking a decision on the application of the petitioner. It was also informed that further actions can be taken only on the basis of the legal opinion. Aggrieved by the delay in considering the request for effecting mutation, petitioner filed this writ petition.