IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J
HOLLY FAMILY HOLIDAYS PVT. LTD – Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT COLLECTOR – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 43441 OF 2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. review of mutation failure leads to legal directive. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. writ petition allowed with directions for reconsideration. (Para 3) |
JUDGMENT
The short grievance of the petitioner is that his property, having an extent of 41.28 acres, covered by Ext.P3 document, has not been mutated in his favour by the 3rd respondent/ Village Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that going by Exts.P15 to P17 documents, which are reports preferred by the Tahsildar based on the instructions given by the District Collector, the transfer of registry sought in respect of the petitioner's property can be allowed. 2. Learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that in the light of Exts.P15 to P17, which were issued subsequent to the filing of the Writ Petition, the transfer of registry sought for by the petitioner cannot be resisted.
3. In the circumstances, Ext.P11 rejection Order will stand set aside and there will be direction to 3rd respondent to reconsider the petitioner's request for effecting transfer of registry. The same shall be reconsidered in the light of Exts.P15 to P17 reports of the Tahsildar. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner will produce a copy of the judgment before the 3rd respondent, for compliance.
The Writ Petition will stand allowed, as indicated above.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.