Judicial orders must provide reasons; property title disputes belong in civil courts, not administrative remedies.

1. These Writ Petitions had been tagged together as they concern the same parties and the same subject. They are considered and disposed of together.

2. The dispute in these Writ Petitions concerns an order dated 30.03.2015 passed by the District Collector, Pathanamthitta, under the Transfer of Registry Rules regarding an extent of 2.40 Ares of land comprised in Re - Sy No. 238/2014 situated in Kulanada Village, Pathanathitta District. While the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.20565 of 2015 viz., Sri. Cherian M. George contends that the said order (produced as Ext.P21) is illegal and the said extent of land in his possession has to be retained in his name as before in the revenue records. Smt. Ponnamma Rajan, who is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.2076 of 2018 and W.P.(C) No.25678 of 2021 contends that the order passed by the District Collector is valid to the extent it finds the mutation effected in favour of Sri.Cherian M.George to be vitiated. She further contends that the said property ought to have been mutated to her name instead of that of her predecessor in interest one Sri.Samuel Mathai. Parties and exhibits are hereinafter referred to as per their status in W.P.(C) No.20565 of 2015.

3. Brief facts:

Sri. Cherian M. George, S/o .P. T. George, the petitioner in WP (C) No.20565 of 2015 is the owner of about 27 cents of land situated in Kulanada Village, Pathanamthitta District vide Ext.P1 sale deed dated 03.10.1994. The adjoining property is owned by Smt.Ponnamma Rajan, who is arrayed as the 9th respondent in the said Writ Petition. There had been civil disputes between Sri.Cherian M.George and Smt.Ponnamma. The civil suit filed by Sri.Cherian M. George had been allowed vide Ext.P7 and those filed by Smt. Ponnamma had been dismissed as revealed from Exts.P3 and P5. Mutation and survey of the property covered vide Ext.P1 had been completed by proceedings dated 19.07.2000 and the impugned land had been included in the name of Sri. Cherian M. George. After nearly a decade, the Smt. Ponnamma raised certain complaints regarding mutation. Her grievance was that 2.40 ares of property purchased by her had been erroneously included in the thandaper of the petitioner. This led to the passing of Exts.P15 to P18. This Court vide Ext.P19 judgment dated 24.09.2013 set aside Exts.P15 to P18. Thereafter Ext.P20 order dated 12.05.2014 was rendered by the 4th respondent (RDO) whereby it was inter alia held that the Munsiff Court, Pathanamthitta, had already declared the title of the petitioner in respect of plaint schedule item No.1 property and had also restrained Smt. Ponnamma from trespassing upon the said property and from widening item No.2 pathway. Hence the revenue authorities cannot interfere in the matter. Smt. Ponnamma filed a revision petition challenging Ext.P20 before the 3rd respondent (District Collector). This led to the 3rd respondent rendering Ext.P21 order dated 30.03.2015 directing the 6th respondent Village Officer to cancel the mutation of 8 ares in favour of Sri. Cherian M.George and include 2.40 ares to thandaper No.3061 ie., of the transferor to Smt. Ponnamma. W.P.(C) No.20565 of 2015 is filed by Sri. Cherian M. George challenging Ext.P21 inter alia on the ground that the same is illegal, arbitrary and mechanically rendered. An interim stay of of Ext.P21 was granted by this Court in W.P.(C) No.20565 of 2015. However, the same was subsequently vacated vide interim order dated 18.08.2016 in IA No.12807 of 2016 wherein it was stated that Ext.P1 sale deed indicates be