Antony Dominic, J.

1. Prayer in this writ petition is to quash Ext. P18 order passed by the first respondent.

2. The facts of the case, to the extent it is relevant, are that the petitioner, a Trust, claims to have purchased 8.75 acres of land situated in Survey Nos. 86/1 and 86/2 of Nemom Village, Thiruvananthapuram Taluk by virtue of 18 sale deeds executed in 1981 by M/s. Krishnamoorthy, Sarojam, Narayanan, and Subramanian, who are stated to be the legal representatives of late Shri. Venkita Subba Iyer.

3. It would appear from the pleadings that the 4th respondent in this writ petition filed an application before the Land Tribunal claiming kudikidappu right in respect of a portion of the land and that the Land Tribunal had allowed the same in his favour. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner herein had filed an appeal as AA No. 40/2005 before the Appellate Authority, Alappuzha. As is seen in Ext. P5 order dated 5/09/2007 of the Appellate Authority, the dispute was settled between the parties.

4. It is stated that during the pendency of AA No. 40/2005, by order dated 01/09/2006, mutation in respect of 8.75 acres of land referred to above was effected in the name of the petitioner. It would also appear that during the pendency of AA 40/2005, the 4th respondent made a complaint to the Vigilance Department against the mutation that was effected in the name of the petitioner. That complaint lead to a vigilance enquiry and ultimately Ext. P16 report was submitted by the Vigilance and Anti-Correction Bureau. In the report certain irregularities have been pointed out and recommendation was made for cancellation of the mutation and also for initiating appropriate action against certain officials.

5. From the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, it would appear that acting upon the vigilance report and Ext. P6 representation by the 4th respondent and Ext. P7 report of the Village Officer, the District Collector ordered cancellation of mutation by his proceedings dated 16/02/2008. Though this order was not communicated to the petitioner, complaining that there was a proposal for cancellation of mutation effected in their favour, petitioner filed Ext. P12 representation to the first respondent. Thereafter, they approached this Court and field WP (C) No. 12848/2008 and that writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 21/05/08 directing the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext. P12. Accordingly, the first respondent heard the parties and passed Ext. P18 order concluding that the mutation in favour of the petitioner is improper and illegal and that the decision to cancel the mutation of the property in question was justified and therefore, the same was confirmed. It is challenging Ext. P18 order referred to above, this writ petition has been filed.

6. The contention of the leaned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the mutation effected in their favour is legal and valid. It is contended that in support of their application for mutation, they had produced Exts. P1 to P4 and also their title deeds. It is stated that mutation is for fiscal purposes and mutation effected will not affect the title claims of any one. Thus, according to him, the reasons which persuaded the collector or the Government to cancel mutation in their favour are totally erroneous and illegal.

7. On behalf of respondents 1 to 4, submission made by the learned Government pleader was that the cancellation of mutation was ordered in exercise of the powers under the Rule 18(iv) of Transfer of Registry Rules. It is stated that, while exercising this power, if the District Collector is satisfied that sufficient grounds exist it is open to the him to revise, cancel or alter any order passed by the Tahsildar exercising this powers under the Rules. It is stated that it was exercising this power, mutation was ordered to be cancelled and for the reasons stated in Ext. P18, the said decision of the Collector was confirmed by the 1 st responden