RAMESH BABU Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the impugned Exhibit-P26 order dated 18.9.2010 issued by the third respondent - Village Officer, Nellanad, Thiruvananthapuram District, purportedly under the provisions of Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966. According to the petitioner, the property already mutated in favour of the petitioner as per Exhibit-P2 dated 11.11.1999 issued by the third respondent has now been mutated in favour of respondent No.6, without even altering or cancelling Exhibit-P2 mutation, in the manner known to law. The prayers raised in this Writ Petition (Civil) filed on 8.4.2011 are as follows :

(2.) Heard Sri.B.Premnath, learned counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioner, Sri.Jestin Mathew, learned Government Pleader appearing for official respondents 1 to 5 and Sri.G.Ram Mohan, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondents 6 to 10.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that he is in ownership and possession of 2 cents of land in re-survey No.440/35 (old re-survey No.849/1-1) of Nellanad Village which he purchased from one Sri.Muraleedharan as per Exhibit-P1 registered sale deed No.3125 of 1988 dated 11.11.1988 of Sub Registrar's Office - SRO, Vamanapuram, Thiruvananthapuram District. The petitioner's case is that 2 cents of property covered by Exhibit-P1 registered sale deed is a pathway leading to the property of one Smt.Kousalya (who is the petitioner's mother). The petitioner would further aver that the abovesaid property has been mutated in favour of the petitioner as per Thandaper account No.11022 of Nellanad Village in Exhibit-P2 proceedings of the third respondent Village Officer issued under the provisions of the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966. The petitioner would also place reliance on Exhibit-P3 communication dated 1.2011 issued by the fourth respondent SRO, Vamanapuram, under RTI proceedings whereby it is stated therein that out of 21 cents that belongs to one Sri.Muraleedharan in S.No.849/1-1 and 587/3-6, the petitioner owns an extent of 2 cents (referable to Exhibit-P1). That after Exhibit-P2 mutation, the petitioner has been paying land tax for the said property. It appears that civil litigations have been initiated by contesting respondents 6 to 10 herein as plaintiffs in which parents of the petitioner and some of the neighbouring property owners have been arrayed as defendants. So also the petitioner, his parents and neighbouring property owners have also initiated civil proceedings as plaintiffs in which contesting respondents 6 to 10 have been arrayed as defendants therein. The details of the said civil litigations are as follows :