The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ petition seeking certiorari to quash property transfer orders and mandamus to allow property transfer. The court accepted the petitioner's submission that the petition was infructuous due to subsequent developments and closed the matter accordingly.
The writ petition (Civil) is dismissed as infructuous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018/17TH KARTHIKA, 1940
WP(C).No. 2490 of 2012
PETITIONER/S:
NOUSHA SANTHOSH @ NOUSHA RANI AGED 37 YEARS, W/O.SANTHOSH KUMAR, NADUPPARAMBIL HOUSE, VILLOONNI POST, KOTTAYAM 686 002.
BY ADV. SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH
RESPONDENT/S:
1 VILLAGE OFFICER, AARPPOKKARA VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 686 001.
3 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KANJIRAPPILLY POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM 686 007.
4 SUB REGISTRAR, ETTUMANOOR SRO, ETTUMANOOR
BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.A.C.VIDHYA,GOVT.PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
The prayers in the aforecaptioned Writ
Petition (Civil) filed on 30.1.2012 are as
follows:
“1. Call for the entire records pertaining to the issuance of that part of Exhibit P-3, disallowing transfer of property under ownership of this Petitioner covered by Exhibit P-1, and Issue by way of a Writ of Certiorari, any other Order, writ or direction, to quash the same.
WP(C).No. 2490 of 2012
-2-
2. Issue by way of a Writ of Mandamus, any other Order, writ or direction, directing the Respondents to allow transfer of property covered by Exhibit P-1, by the Petitioner to any lawful purchaser of her choice immediately.
3. Such other relief's that this Honourable Court deem fit and proper to grant in the interest of justice.
4. Award costs of the proceedings.”
2. Now it is submitted by Sri.Denizen
Komath, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions of his party, that the above petition
could be closed as infructuous in view of the subsequent development.
In the light of the abovesaid submission, the aforecaptioned Writ Petition (Civil) will stand
dismissed as infructuous.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS,
JUDGE.
Bkn/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition allowing property transfer should be closed as infructuous due to subsequent developments.
Whether the prayers in the writ petition pertaining to quashing and directing property transfer orders should be dismissed as infructuous.
Nousha Santhosh @ Nousha Rani
Village Officer, Aarpokkara Village
Tahzildar, Kottayam Taluk Office
Sub Inspector of Police Kanjirappilly Police Station
Sub Registrar, Ettumanoor SRO
Alexander Thomas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
