ANNIE THOMAS Vs. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VADAMA VILLAGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner purchased an extent of 3¾ cents of property along with a building contained therein in Survey No.675 of Vadama Village in Mala, Thrissur District. As per document No.75/2009 of SRO, Mala. Petitioner made an application for effecting mutation of land in favour of the petitioner dated 9.03.2009. As directed copies of previous documents were produced by the petitioner on 9.11.2010. Petitioner appeared before the 1st respondent on the scheduled date and time and she was informed that Tahsildar has to consider the matter and required the petitioner to appear on 11.11.2010. Aggrieved petitioner has approached this Court and secured Ext.P2 judgment dated 03.01.2011, whereby a direction was issued to consider Ext.P1 application submitted by the petitioner. However, in view of the non-compliance of the direction made by this Court, petitioner again approached this Court and secured Ext.P3 judgment dated 8.4.2016, directing the 1st respondent to consider the request made by the petitioner in this regard. On receipt of Ext.P3, the Tahsildar, Kodungalloor addressed the 2nd respondent informing that the application is to be considered by the 2nd respondent, since, property in question is under the jurisdiction of Tahsildar, Chalakkudy. It is the contention of the petitioner, in spite of receipt of Ext.P4, 2nd respondent has not initiated any action. Thereupon, petitioner has submitted Ext.P5 before the 2nd respondent, which is also pending consideration. These are the background facts persuaded the petitioner to approach this Court by filing this writ petition.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and perused the documents on record and pleadings put forth by the petitioner.

(3.) Second respondent has filed counter affidavit refuting the allegations claims and demands made by the petitioner in the writ petition. The other contentions are also raised to the effect that there is no property existing as is claimed by the petitioner in his application for mutation and the sale deed. Taking note of the respective submissions made across the bar and the pleadings put forth by the respective parties, I think, statutory authority will arrive at a decision on the basis of the application submitted by the petitioner under the provisions of Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966. Second respondent has no case that it has arrived at a decision and orders are issued to the petitioner in terms of the application submitted by the petitioner. That being the situation, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to take on board, the application submitted by the petitioner along with Ext.P5 representation and consider the same in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and any other interested or affected persons, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.