ASHBIN MATHEW Vs. REGISTRAR IRINJALAKKUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows:

(2.) Heard Sri.K.B.Gangesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

(3.) The petitioner had purchased 4.05 ares of property with a residential building in Sy.No.907/1 of Madayikonam Village, Mukundapuram Taluk, Thrissur Revenue District, from one Smt.Jayalakshmi, D/o.Velayudhan K.K., residing at 27-B Pocket 5 MIG Mayur Vihar, Phase-III, Delhi, as per Ext.P-1 registered sale deed No.1712/2017 dated 9.11.2017 of S.R.O., Irinjalakuda. In Ext.P-1 sale deed the abbreviation of the name of the father of the vendor has been wrongly shown as "V.K.Krishnan" instead of "Velayudhan K.K.". On account of this, the mutation of the property in favour of the petitioner was declined by respondents 2 & 3. The vendor has issued Ext.P-4 in favour of the petitioner acknowledging the mistake and expressing her willingness to correct Ext.P-1 and rectify the same relating to the description of the father's name in Ext.P-1 sale deed and also to effect mutation of the property in favour of the petitioner. Even after Ext.P-4, the respondents have refused to grant mutation in respect of the property of the petitioner and they have insisted for a rectification deed. When Ext.P-5 rectification deed was produced before the 1st respondent, he had insisted for stamp duty and registration charges applicable for a new sale dded for registering the same. It is alleged that the conduct of both the 1st respondent-Registrar as well as respondents 2 & 3-revenue officials are illegal and arbitrary.