Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ABUBACKER KUNJU MUHAMMEDALI versus THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


ABUBACKER KUNJU MUHAMMEDALI v. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR - WP(C) No. 26870 of 2006(W) [2007] RD-KL 13593 (20 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 26870 of 2006(W)

1. ABUBACKER KUNJU MUHAMMEDALI,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
... Respondent

2. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR,

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,

For Petitioner :SRI.D.SAJEEV

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

Dated :20/07/2007

O R D E R

S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

W.P.(C)NO. 26870 OF 2006

DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF JULY, 2007



JUDGMENT

The petitioner has obtained properties pursuant to decree in O.S.No.134/1957. The petitioner has applied for mutation of the properties which the petitioner has purchased in court auction. Ext.P5 is the said application. The petitioner complains that the same is not being disposed of by the 2nd respondent.

2. The learned Government pleader submits that several litigations are pending between the petitioner and another person claiming to have rights over the property and that is why the application has not been disposed of yet. I do not think that the 2nd respondent is entitled to take such a stand when the application is received for mutation. The 2nd respondent has to decide the matter on the basis of the documents available. Simply because of some suit pending in respect of the same, the 2nd respondent cannot postpone consideration of the same especially, in view of Rule 16 of the Transfer of Registry Rules which says that transfer of registry has to be effected in accordance with the decrees of Civil Courts as and when the same are passed. W.P.(c)No.26870/06 2 In the above circumstances, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider Ext.P5 application for mutation submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously, as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above.

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

Acd W.P.(c)No.26870/06 3


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.