JUDGMENT K.K. Narendran, J. 1. The petitioner in this original petition is none other than the eldest son of the additional 4th respondent. The dispute between the petitioner and the additional 4th res­pondent regarding certain properties situated within the Cannanore Municipality had led to this original petition. The petitioner’s case is that he is in possession of 97 cents of garden land and the buildings thereon in R.S. 839/1, ward I, block 16 of the Cannanore Municipality since 1962. Sub­sequently, the entire rights in respect of the said properties have passed into the hands of the petitioner on 31st January 1974 by virtue of the certificate issued by the Cannanore Land Tribunal under section 72 of the Kerala Land Re­forms Act, 1963 and Ext. P-1 is the said certificate. Exts.P-2 and P-3 are certain other documents the petitioner has produced to show that he is in ownership and possession of the above properties. 2. On 27th September 1973 the petitioner received Ext. P-4 notice from the 1st respondent—Municipal Com­missioner calling upon him to show cause why the jama in respect of the two buildings stated therein and standing in the name of the petitioner should not be transferred in the name of K. V. Katheesumma, the additional 4th respond­ent. The petitioner filed an objection to Ext. P-1 question­ing the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent to make the enquiry in question and also the right to make such a transfer. The case of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent when con­sidering the petitioner’s objection proceeded with the enquiry for the purpose of deciding the title in respect of the pro­perties in question. It was under the above circumstances that the petitioner has approached this court with this writ petition for a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P-4 notice and for a further direction to prohibit the 1st respondent from proceeding with the enquiry in pursuance of Ext. P4. 3. The additional 4th respondent in her counter-affidavit asserts that she is the owner in possession and occupation of the properties in question and also denies the claims raised by the petitioner. She states that she never transferred any right over the properties either to the petitioner or to any other persons at any time. She never wrote to the 1st respondent to transfer the ownership of the buildings in name of the petitioner. She states that she never transferred any right over the properties either to the petitioner or to any other persons at any time. She never wrote to the 1st respondent to transfer the ownership of the buildings in name of the petitioner. The alleged transfer petition is seen to have been filed forging her signature. She asserts that she is prepared to produce evidence to prove her ownership and possession. It was when her petition to the 1st respondent was posted for evidence on 11th October 1974 that the petitioner approached this Court challenging Ext. P-4 notice. The additional 4th respondent further avers that Ext. P-4 notice sought to be quashed in this original petition filed on 16th August 1974 is dated 20th September 1973. It is also pointed out that Ext. P-1 certi­ficate of the Land Tribunal relied on by the petitioner is already questioned before this Court in O.P. No. 2781 of 1974. She has produced Ext. R-2, a certificate from the Tahsildar, Cannanore to show that the buildings in question are in her possession. Exts.R-3 and R-4 are certain other documents which she has produced to prove her ownership and possession of the buildings in question. 4. The 1st respondent has filed a counter-affidavit. It is admitted in para 3 of the counter-affidavit that the assessment in respect of the buildings and the land appurte­nant thereto were transferred in the name of the petitioner in November 1969 on the basis of an application by the additional 4th respondent. The additional 4th respondent submitted a petition on 22nd July 1973 stating that the above transfer was effected without her knowledge or consent. Subsequently she submitted another petition requesting for changing the assessment in respect of the above buildings in her name. The statement in para 7 of the counter-affidavit is that the transfer of assessment made in 1969 was a mistake if the petition received on 5th September 1969 was not signed by the additional 4th respondent and that the Municipal Commissioner has got power for recti­fying mistakes. 5. The petitioner has filed two reply affidavits. The statement in para 7 of the counter-affidavit is that the transfer of assessment made in 1969 was a mistake if the petition received on 5th September 1969 was not signed by the additional 4th respondent and that the Municipal Commissioner has got power for recti­fying mistakes. 5. The petitioner has filed two reply affidavits. In the first reply affidavit it is contended that the original petition was filed on 16th August 1974 when the enquiry stood posted to 19th August 1974 and hence the original petition was filed within time and that the allegation that there is considerable delay in filing the original petition is not correct. It asserted in para 9 that there is no provision in the Kerala Municipalities Act or in the Rules made there­under enabling the 1st respondent to conduct an enquiry that is proposed in Ext. P-4 notice. The suggestion made in para 13 is that the petitioner doubts whether his mother the additional 4th respondent is even aware of the proceed­ings in this court. In the second reply affidavit filed on 10th December 1974 the petitioner asserts that once a party to the transfer makes an application and the transfer of registry is made, there is no appeal to the Municipal Council against that and the matter ends there and it becomes final both under the Rules and under section 106 of the Kerala-Municipalities Act. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under the Kerala Municipalities Act and the Rules made thereunder, the 1st respondent has no power to make the enquiry contemplated in Ext. P-4 notice. It is also contended that even if it comes to the notice of the 1st respondent that a transfer effected under rule 3 of the Kerala Municipalities (Transfer of Registry of Ownership of Properties) Rules, 1966 (for short, the Rules) was wrongly effected, even then, the 1st respondent has no power to reconsider the matter on a complaint received by him subse­quently. It is also pointed out that the stand taken in the counter-affidavit filed by the 1st respondent that the Municipal Commissioner has got the power for rectifying mistakes in the matter of transfer of assessment is not correct and is not supported by any of provisions in the Kerala Municipalities Act or the Rules made thereunder. 7. It is also pointed out that the stand taken in the counter-affidavit filed by the 1st respondent that the Municipal Commissioner has got the power for rectifying mistakes in the matter of transfer of assessment is not correct and is not supported by any of provisions in the Kerala Municipalities Act or the Rules made thereunder. 7. Learned counsel for the additional 4th respondent relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in M.S.R.T. Corporation v. B.R.M. Service A.I.R.1969 S.C.329 and contends that the petitioner who appeared before the 1st respondent in pur­suance of Ext. P-4 notice and filed written objections cannot now turn round and question the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent to make the enquiry contemplated by Ext. P-4. But the statement in the original petition is that in the very same objection filed by the petitioner before the 1st respon­dent, the petitioner has questioned the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent to make the enquiry in question. If that be so, and if the petitioner believes that his objection is not going to be allowed and that the 1st respondent is proceeding further with the enquiry, it will be open to the petitioner to approach this court under Article 226 of the Constitution and seek appropriate remedies. The contention of the additional 4th respondent that there is inordinate delay in approaching this court is also not tenable because the enquiry proposed to be conducted by Ext. P-4 was yet to be conducted and the petitioner has approached this Court before the enquiry was actually conducted. If it is a case of total want of jurisdiction, it is only proper that the 1st respondent does not proceed with the enquiry. Section 21 of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1960 (Act 14 of 1961) enumerates the functions of the Commissioner, Section 21 (c) reads: “1. Functions of the Commissioner:—The Commissioner shall— (a) …………………………………………. (b) …………………………………………. If it is a case of total want of jurisdiction, it is only proper that the 1st respondent does not proceed with the enquiry. Section 21 of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1960 (Act 14 of 1961) enumerates the functions of the Commissioner, Section 21 (c) reads: “1. Functions of the Commissioner:—The Commissioner shall— (a) …………………………………………. (b) …………………………………………. (c) perform all the duties and exercise all the powers specifically, imposed or conferred on the Commissioner by this Act, and subject whenever it is hereinafter expressly so provided, to the sanction of the council, and subject to all other restrictions, limitations and conditions hereinafter imposed, exercise the executive power for the due fulfilment of the purposes of this Act.� Section 106 of the Act insists that: “Whenever the title of any person primarily liable to the payment of property tax on any premises to or over such premises is transferred, the person whose title is transferred, and the person to whom the same shall be transferred shall within three months after the execution of the instrument of transfer or after its registration if it be registered or, after the transfer is effected, if no instrument be executed, give notice of such transfer to the Commissioner.� Rule 3 of the Rules prescribes the procedure to be followed in effecting changes in the ownership of properties in the assessment books. Rule 3 (1) reads:— “3 (i) Transfer by voluntary action owner.—In all cases of absolute transfer of title, the registry of properties in the assessment books may be altered to correspond with the transfer of its ownership on the application of both, the parties to the transfer or either of them, pro­vided that the application for change of registry is in every case made in writing and is signed by the party or parties making it. It may be sent by post or presented in person or by duly authorised agent or through an officer of the Registration Department. Where such an application is presented by both the parties and one of them is a registered owner, change of registry as applied for may be ordered at once. But where only one of the parties to the transfer makes the application, notice shall be served on the other party. Where such an application is presented by both the parties and one of them is a registered owner, change of registry as applied for may be ordered at once. But where only one of the parties to the transfer makes the application, notice shall be served on the other party. Where the registered owner is not party to the transaction, notice shall also be issued to him whether the application for transfer of registry is presented by both parties or one of them. If the registered owner objects to the proposed transfer, no change shall be made unless the person who claims to be the owner produces satisfactory legal evidence. Where only one party to the transaction applies and the other either objects or is silent the parties should be connected by a complete chain of documents. When the claim is not complete, it should be filled in by other evidence such as statements of respectable persons and tax receipts. A month’s time shall be held and unless the objection is found to be valid, transfer of registry shall be made.� A perusal of the above provisions of the Act and the Rules which govern the alteration in the registry of properties in the assessment books consequent on an absolute transfer of title will make it clear that first an application by both the transferor and the transferee is to be filed before the Com­missioner. On receipt of a joint application, the alteration in the registry as applied for will be ordered. When only one of the parties apply, notice shall be served on the other and on receipt of the notice, if the registered owner objects to the proposed transfer, the alteration will be made on the transferee producing satisfactory legal evidence. There is nothing stated in any of the provisions that after effecting the alteration in the registry, the Commissioner has got the power to reopen the matter and make alterations in the alteration already made. Unless and until such a power is conferred, upon the Commissioner, the Commissioner cannot do anything in the matter even if the Commissioner is convinced that the alteration already made on the joint application must not have been made. Moreover, the alteration in this case happened to be made not because of any clerical mistake. Unless and until such a power is conferred, upon the Commissioner, the Commissioner cannot do anything in the matter even if the Commissioner is convinced that the alteration already made on the joint application must not have been made. Moreover, the alteration in this case happened to be made not because of any clerical mistake. In cases where something happens to be done because of a clerical mistake, the officer doing the same may have the power to rectify that action because the mistake involved is only a clerical mistake. But the case here is different. It is not a clerical mistake but perhaps a wrong decision taken on the merits based on the representa­tions which might have been false, but simply because the Commissioner acted on false representations he will not have power to reopen the matter unless and until he has got a power for review under the Act and the Rules. Here, no such power is conferred upon the Commissioner. As a matter of fact, under Rule 4 of the Rules the aggrieved party has got a right of appeal to the Municipal Council against the order of the Commissioner. Over and above that, the aggrieved party will have always the right to approach the civil court to get the order cancelled. So, the enquiry proposed to be conducted in pursuance of Ext. P-4 is an enquiry which the 1st respondent has no power to make. 8. For the reasons stated above, I quash Ext. P-4 notice and direct the 1st respondent not to proceed with the enquiry in question. It is made clear that the additional 4th respondent will always have the right to set aside the alteration made by the 1st respondent in the register kept by the Municipality under the Rules by resorting to a civil suit. 9. The Original Petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.