Muthoot Educational Trust v. The District Registrar (General)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL 2015/1ST VAISAKHA, 1937 WP(C).No. 12714 of 2015 (L) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):
-------------- MUTHOOT EDUCATIONAL TRUST AGED 59 YEARS VARIKOLI P.O., PUTHENCRUZ-682 308, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY MANAGING TRUSTEE.
BY ADVS.SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM (SR.) SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM SRI.THOMAS GEORGE RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) ERNAKULAM-682 016.
2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
3. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
4. THE SUB REGISTRAR THRIKKAKARA-682 030.
5. INFOPARKS KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ATHULYA BUILDING, INFOPARK, INFOPARK P.O.
KOCHI-682 042.
R5 BY SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.R.RAJESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-04-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 12714 of 2015 (L) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------ P1 : COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.18.8.2014 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. P2 : COPY OF THE LEASE DEED DTD.29.12.2014 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND 5TH RESPONDENT.
P3 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.21.2.2015 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
P4 : COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.13.2.2015 ISSUED FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P5 : COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD.13.2.2015 ISSUED FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- NIL /TRUE COPY/ PS TO JUDGE
C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J ---------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.12714 of 2015 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st April, 2015
JUDGMENT
The grievance of the petitioner is regarding the inordinate delay in the matter of taking a final decision invoking power under Section 54(3) of the Kerala Stamp Act by the third respondent, in respect of the property covered by Exhibit P2 lease deed.
2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the fifth respondent and the learned Government Pleader as also taking note of the fact that the third respondent is competent to pass such orders in view of the provision under Section 54(3) of the Kerala Stamp Act, I am inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition without making any observation touching the various contentions raised in the Writ Petition.
3. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the third respondent to pass appropriate
WP(C).12714/15 orders in respect of the property covered by Exhibit P2, for which a reference has been made by the first respondent as per Exhibit P5, expeditiously, at any rate, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.T.RAVIKUMAR JUDGE vgs21/4/15