JUDGMENT : Muralee Krishna, J. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P8 order dated 24.03.2014 passed by the 3 rd respondent Tahsildar, Devikulam; a writ of mandamus commanding the 3 rd respondent to take a decision on Ext.P16 representation dated 09.06.2022 submitted by the petitioner; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 3 rd respondent to effect mutation of 29 cents of property situated in resurvey No.105/15 of Marayoor village to the name of the petitioner under Rule 28 of Transfer of Registry Rules , 1966. 2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner has been in possession of 29 cents of revenue puramboke in resurvey No.105/15, Block No.48 of Marayoor Village. Her father Kumaran had settled on the property in 1945. The petitioner obtained the property by virtue of Ext.P1 settlement deed dated 28.02.2005, executed by her father. The petitioner constructed a house on the property in the year 1985. Though the petitioner filed an application before the 3 rd respondent on 25.07.2011 for the assignment of land in resurvey No.105/4C, no action was taken by the 3 rd respondent. Hence, the petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.22590 of 2013 seeking a direction for the assignment of the land. By Ext.P6 judgment dated 18.10.2013, this Court directed the 3 rd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders in the application filed by the petitioner. The 3 rd respondent then conducted an enquiry and obtained Ext.P7 report dated 28.01.2014 from the Village Officer concerned. However, the 3 rd respondent passed Ext.P8 order dated 24.03.2014 without considering Ext.P7 report of the Village Officer. 2.1 According to the petitioner, her father obtained 19.500 cents each in survey No.107/1B by virtue of Sale deed Nos.2073/1987 and 2074/1987 of SRO Devikulam. Her father had given the 6 th respondent, who is one of the sisters of the petitioner, 5 Ares 97 square meters of property situated in survey No.105/15, as per Ext.P9 sale deed No.2649 of 2004 of SRO Devikulam. The 5 th respondent, who is another sister of the petitioner was also given 5 Ares 83 square meter of property in resurvey No.105/15 by the father of the petitioner by virtue of Ext.P10 gift deed bearing No.153 of 2002 of SRO Devikulam. But in fact, these two properties are not situated in resurvey No.105/15. The 5 th respondent, who is another sister of the petitioner was also given 5 Ares 83 square meter of property in resurvey No.105/15 by the father of the petitioner by virtue of Ext.P10 gift deed bearing No.153 of 2002 of SRO Devikulam. But in fact, these two properties are not situated in resurvey No.105/15. This fact is stated in Ext.P11 report dated 18.04.2015 submitted by the 4 th respondent before the Sub Collector, Devikulam in an enquiry conducted on the basis of an application filed by the 5 th respondent for the purpose of remitting the tax. The tax for the properties in resurvey No.105/15 was not accepted from respondents 5 and 6 by the 4 th respondent since they were not in possession of the respective properties. The petitioner filed Ext.P16 representation before the authorities for correcting the mutation effected in the revenue records in the name of respondents 5 and 6 after measuring the property possessed and owned by the petitioner and respondents 5 and 6. In that representation, it was requested to fix the boundaries of the property in the possession of the petitioner in resurvey No. 105/15 on the basis of the title deeds of the petitioner and respondents 5 and 6. Since no action was taken in that representation, the petitioner approached this Court. 3. The 3rd respondent filed a counter-affidavit dated 14.10.2024 opposing the reliefs sought in the writ petition. Paragraphs 3 to 6 of that counter-affidavit read thus: “3. The petitioner claims that she is in possession of 11.80 Ares of wet land in Resurvey No. 105/15 in Block 48 in Marayoor Village which was originally owned by her father Kumaran and demands assignment of the above land in her name. An extent of 7.40 Ares of dry land in Resurvey 105/4 and 11.80 Ares of wet land in Resurvey No. 105/15 was in the name of Kumaran S/o. Manikandan, Chandrika Bhavan, Mannarapetty, Marayoor Village as per the Thandapper No.154 in Block 48 of Marayoor Village. He had transferred the land to his daughters Prasutha and Prasanna, the 5 th and 6 th respondents in this Writ Petition. 4. The petitioner had earlier filed WP(C) No. 22590 of 2013 for the assignment of land in her favour. He had transferred the land to his daughters Prasutha and Prasanna, the 5 th and 6 th respondents in this Writ Petition. 4. The petitioner had earlier filed WP(C) No. 22590 of 2013 for the assignment of land in her favour. Complying the judgment dated 18.10.2013, the 2 nd respondent in the WP(C) No. 30917 of 2023, the Tahsildar, Devikulam had issued an order vide proceedings No. B3-12988/2013 dated 24.03.2013 stating that the land which was already in the name of Kumaran (father of the petitioner) can be transferred to her name only on production of a valid transfer deed. However, she has not produced any document so that mutation could not be effected. From 11.80 Ares comprised in Resurvey No.105/15 in Thandapper No. 154, in the name of Kumaran, 5.83 Ares transferred in the name of Prasutha (5 th respondent) as per TP 2029 and 5.97 Ares was transferred in the name of Prasanna (6 th respondent) as per TP 2342. 5. The petitioner has also submitted that the land in resurvey 105/15 is not in the possession of the 5 th and 6 th respondents. On the basis of the representation of the thandapper holders and original possession of land, an extent of 10.53 Ares of wet has been restored in TP 154 in the name of the original thandapper holder, Sri. Kumaran as per proceedings No. C5-8811/2017 dated 16.08.2024, Tahsildar (LR), Devikulam. 6. The petitioner is claiming assignment of land which is already in the name of her father as per the resurvey records of Marayoor Village. The land registered in the name of a person in the resurvey records cannot be considered for assignment under the provisions of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules , 1964”. 4. The 4th respondent filed a counter-affidavit dated 27.01.2025. Paragraph 3 of that counter affidavit reads thus: “3. As per the direction of this Hon'ble Court, the records in the Village Office were verified and it was found that the property in Re-Survey Block No.48, Re-survey No.105/15 having an extent of 11.80 Ares is in the name and ownership of Kumaran. On perusal of the Village Records, the old Survey Number of the said Resurvey was 107/1B. On verifying the old Basic Tax Register, 1 Acre 41 Cents of property was belonging to Godavarma Raja of Padinjare Madathil, Kunnathunadu Taluk, Pakuthiyil Desom, residing at Marayoor Desom. On perusal of the Village Records, the old Survey Number of the said Resurvey was 107/1B. On verifying the old Basic Tax Register, 1 Acre 41 Cents of property was belonging to Godavarma Raja of Padinjare Madathil, Kunnathunadu Taluk, Pakuthiyil Desom, residing at Marayoor Desom. Hence, on verifying the records, it is understood that the property which in possession of Kumaran is not obtained by Land Assignment Act and Rules. The property obtained by Kumaran is by transfer of ownership from the said Godavarma Raja by various Deeds”. 5. The petitioner produced Exts.P17 and P18 documents along with I.A. No.2 of 2025. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the affidavit filed in support of that application read thus: “2. It is respectfully submitted that as per the counter affidavit filed by the 4 th respondent, as directed by this Honourable Court on 16.01.2025, specifically stated in para No.3 that 11.80 Ares of property is in the name and ownership of Kumaran which is situated in re-survey Block No.48, Resurvey No.105/15 of Marayoor Village and subsequently it is stated that the old survey number of said resurvey was 107/1-B. In 107/1-B shows that as per the settlement register, the property belongs to one Godavarma Raja Kerala Varma Raja. A copy of the relevant pages of settlement register of Village Office, Marayur showing the details of ownership of property situated in Survey No. 107/1-B is produced herewith and marked as Ext.P17. 3. It is respectfully submitted that, as per the basic tax register the father of the petitioner received the above mentioned property belong to Survey No. 107/1-B and 107/1-A. A copy of the basic tax register showing the name of the father of the petitioner in respect of 11.80 Ares of property belong to Survey No. 107/1-A and 107/1-B is produced herewith and marked as Ext.P18. It is respectfully submitted that it shows that Survey No.107/1-B belong to one Mr. Godavarma Raja Kerala Varma Raja as per Ext. P17. At the same time, the property situated in 107/1-A is doubtful either belong to a Puramboke land (Government property) or a private person. To find out the truth in respect of the property situated in Survey No.107/1-A can only be through the verification of settlement register showing the survey No.107/1-A of Marayur Village. P17. At the same time, the property situated in 107/1-A is doubtful either belong to a Puramboke land (Government property) or a private person. To find out the truth in respect of the property situated in Survey No.107/1-A can only be through the verification of settlement register showing the survey No.107/1-A of Marayur Village. For that purpose, this Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the 3 rd and 7 th respondents to produce the copy of settlement register showing the survey No.107/1-A for the effective adjudication of the case, otherwise irreparable injury will be caused”. 6. Along with a memo dated 02.06.2025, the learned Special Government Pleader produced the relevant pages of the settlement register showing survey No.107/1-A of Marayoor Village. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the entire 29 cents of property situated in resurvey No.105/15 is now in the possession of the petitioner on the strength of Ext.P1 unregistered deed executed by her father. Though Exts.P9 and P10 documents were executed in respect of a portion of the very same property in resurvey No.105/15 in favour of respondents 5 and 6 by their father, from Ext.P7 report of the Village Officer, it is clear that respondents 5 and 6 are not in possession of any property in resurvey No.105/15. Therefore, rejection of the request of the petitioner by virtue of Ext.P8 order by the Tahsildar, Devikulam, is incorrect. As per the settlement register produced by the Government, survey No.107/1-A is shown as ‘tharisu’. Survey No.107/1-A is the old survey number of resurvey No.105/15. According to the Government, the father of the petitioner obtained the property in survey No.107/1-B from Godavarma Raja Kerala Varma Raja, whose name is shown in the settlement register. Therefore, an enquiry ought to have been conducted by the 3 rd respondent before rejecting the representation of the petitioner. 9. The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the name of the father of the petitioner is entered in the revenue records as the owner of the property in resurvey No.105/15, having an extent of 29 cents. He assigned portions of the same to the sisters of the petitioner by virtue of two documents. However, the entire property is now in the possession of the petitioner. He assigned portions of the same to the sisters of the petitioner by virtue of two documents. However, the entire property is now in the possession of the petitioner. In fact, the old survey number of resurvey No.105/15 is 107/1-B, which stands in the name of Godavarma Raja Kerala Varma Raja. The father of the petitioner might have obtained that property from him. However, the property situated in survey No.107/1-A is still shown as ‘tharisu’, which means puramboke. 10. The specific case of the petitioner is that her father had been in possession of 29 cents of property situated in resurvey No.105/15 in Block No.48 of Marayoor Village, though he had not obtained the assignment of that property. The petitioner obtained that property from her father by virtue of Ext.P1 settlement deed. But while going through Ext.P1, we notice that it is an unregistered document executed on a Rs.50/- stamp paper. It is trite that an immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and above cannot be alienated by executing such an unregistered document. 11. It is also the case of the petitioner that her father executed Exts.P9 and P10 documents in favour of her sisters in respect of portions of the property covered in Ext.P1, but are not in possession of the same. From Ext.P7 report of the Village Officer, Marayoor, we notice that the sisters of the petitioner are not in possession of any property in resurvey No.105/15. In Ext.P8 proceedings, it is stated by the 3 rd respondent Tahsildar that the petitioner has applied for mutation of property in resurvey No.105/4, whereas the property in her possession is resurvey No.105/15. It is also noted in Ext.P8 proceedings that the property in resurvey No.105/15, having an extent of 11.80 Ares is in the name of the petitioner’s father Kumaran and hence it cannot be assigned in the name of the petitioner as requested by her. 12. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No.2 of 2025, sworn in by the petitioner, it is stated that the father of the petitioner received properties in survey Nos.107/1-A and 107/1- B. However, the property in survey No.107/1-A is still shown as the Government property in the settlement register. 12. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No.2 of 2025, sworn in by the petitioner, it is stated that the father of the petitioner received properties in survey Nos.107/1-A and 107/1- B. However, the property in survey No.107/1-A is still shown as the Government property in the settlement register. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we are of the view that all the above facts have to be enquired in detail by the 2 nd respondent District Collector, after affording the parties an opportunity of hearing and a decision has to be arrived at regarding the entitlement of the petitioner claimed in Ext.P16 representation. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2 nd respondent, District Collector Idukki, to conduct an enquiry of all the facts stated in Ext.P16 representation dated 09.06.2022 submitted by the petitioner before the 3 rd respondent Tahsildar, Devikulam, after hearing all the aggrieved parties concerned and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law. The 3 rd respondent Tahsildar shall transmit Ext.P16 representation submitted by the petitioner to the office of the 2 nd respondent District Collector within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment and the 2 nd respondent District Collector shall take a decision in the matter as directed above, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of Ext.P16 from the 3 rd respondent.