JUDGMENT : VIJU ABRAHAM, J. 1. Petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the stand taken by the respondents that the mutation of 5.67 ares of property situated in R.S No.348/1 in Block No.20 of Chavara village can be effected only after disposal of civil suit pending in this regard before the Munsiff Court, Karunagapally. 2. Petitioner submits that he was in ownership and possession of 40.7 ares of land in old Survey No. 9987 of Chavara Village as per a gift deed. Certain extent of the said property was sold and now the petitioner is in possession of property having an extent of 5.67 ares of property situated in R.S No.348/1 in Block No.20 of Chavara village. The 4 th respondent attempted to encroach upon the property of the petitioner and when the construction of the boundary wall was obstructed by the 4 th respondent, a suit was as O.S. No. 472/2015 before the Munsiff Court, Kanjirapally which was decreed in favour of the petitioner as per Ext P2. Respondents 5 to 8 filed a claim petition in the EP filed by the petitioner claiming independent right over the property which was dismissed as per Ext P3. Thereafter petitioner approached the 1 st respondent for e mutation of the property which was declined as per Ext P5, taking a stand that mutation can be effected only after the disposal of the civil suit pending in this regard before the Munsiff Court, Karunagapally. Petitioner, in Grounds D and E of the writ petition, relies on various judgments to contend that the authorities are bound to effect mutation and accept tax. 3. The 2nd respondent has filed a detailed counter afÏdavit, as follows:- “3. The petitioner filed the O.S. No. 472/15 before the Hon'ble Munsiff Court, Karunagappally impleading the 5th respondent as the respondent in the Suit, for effecting mutation of land in Chavara Village. The petitioner claimed that an extent of 40.47 Ares and 04.05 Ares of land were under her possession by virtue of Gift Deed No. 6405/1967, 4356/70 in old survey No. 9987. She submitted that from this, 40.47 Ares of land was purchased by the Kerala Government in 1972 under the Laksham Veedu Housing Scheme. The petitioner claimed that an extent of 40.47 Ares and 04.05 Ares of land were under her possession by virtue of Gift Deed No. 6405/1967, 4356/70 in old survey No. 9987. She submitted that from this, 40.47 Ares of land was purchased by the Kerala Government in 1972 under the Laksham Veedu Housing Scheme. She filed the the OS for effecting mutation of 05.67 Ares of land, including the remaining 04.05 Ares and excess land (Vadavuvasi), and she obtained a Court Order dated 13.07.2021 in favour of her. In the property description table of the said order, it was described as the remaining 04.05 Ares of land and the excess property (vadavuvasi) after the transaction of 40.46 from the jointly lying property including 40.47 Ares and 04.05 Ares comprised in old survey No. 9987 in Chavara Village which was changed as 05.69 Ares of land comprised in Re-survey No. 348/1-1 in Block No. 20 in Chavara Village as per resurvey records. 4. It is submitted that the Village ofÏcer, Chavara, reported that the said property was surveyed and demarcated in the presence of the commission appointed by the Hon'ble Munsif Court, and was under the possession of the petitioner. But in the Court Order and in the Sketch prepared by the Commission, it was recorded the Re-survey Number as 348/1-1 part. But, as per village records the Re- survey no. 348/1-1 does not co-relate to the Scheduled property in the OS. The corresponding Re-survey number for the old survey number 9987 recorded in O.S is 348/1. But as per Basic Tax Register, the properties comprised in Resurvey No. 348/1 co-relate to the old survey numbers 9379, 9987, 9387 and the extent is 42.10, the corresponding Re-survey numbers for the old survey number 9987 are 333/1 to 333/24 and the total extent of land is 44.05 Ares. As per the entries in the Basic Tax register this 44.05 Ares of land was purchased by the Government of Kerala under the Laksham Veedu Housing Scheme. On verification of the village records, it is found that the 42.10 Ares of land recorded in the Court Order comprised in 348/1 was under the possession of Koyakkutty Vaidyan Ibrahimkutty Vidyan, Thaikoottathil. Menampally Muri, Chavara Village. 5. It is submitted that after conducting field verification, the Taluk Surveyor and the Head Surveyor submitted reports. As per the reports, 42.10 Ares of land in old survey no. Menampally Muri, Chavara Village. 5. It is submitted that after conducting field verification, the Taluk Surveyor and the Head Surveyor submitted reports. As per the reports, 42.10 Ares of land in old survey no. 9379, 9987, 9387 were under the possession of Sri. Ibrahimkutty Vidyan, S/o Sri. Koyakkutty Vaidyan Thaikoottathil, Menampally Muri, Chavara Village vide Tandaper No. 4484. From this, 02.43 Ares of land was transferred to TP 16823 vide PV No. 978/11, 07.69 Ares to TP 16824, 12.15 Ares to TP 16825, 19.83 Ares to TP 16822, and no extent of land is remaining in TP 4484. After this transactions of 02.43 Ares of land comprised in 348/1 vide Tandaper No. 16823, 07.69 Ares of land comprised in 348/1- 4 vide Tandaper No. 18629 which was transacted from the Tandaper No. 16824 and an extent of 06.07 Ares land comprised in 348/1-1-2 vide Tandaper No. 19465 which was subdevided from 12.15 Ares comprised in 348/1-1 vide Tandaper no.16825 as per PV No. 808/15, 06.08 Ares of land was remaining in 348/1-1. At the same time the following transactions were made in the 19.83 Ares of land comprised in Re- Survey No. 348/1-2 (Tandaper No. 16822). 6. On verifying the report submitted by the Taluk Surveyor and the Head Surveyor, it is found that the Hon'ble Munsif Court, Karunagappally, allowed 05.67 Ares of land as per the judgement dated 13.07.2021 in O.S. No. 472/15 and implemented the order in the property. The Resurvey Number recorded as 348/1 part in the Sketch prepared by the Commission is wrong. The 19.83 Ares of land comprised in the Resy 348/1-2 shares boundary with Scheduled property in the OS. Hence, the Taluk Surveyor and the Head Surveyor reported that the mutations effected in 19.83 Ares of land by way of TP. 17598, ??. 18773, ??. 18774, ??.19592, ??. 19591 needed to be cancelled. 7. It is submitted that on the basis of this report, the concerned parties were heard on 26.11.2021. Sr. Nisam (TP holder of 18773), Sri. Hussain (TP holder of 18774) and Smt. Haseena (TP holder of 19592) appeared for hearing and informed that they filed O.S. Nos. 293/21, O.S.No. 294/21 and O.S.No. 295/21 before the Hon'ble Munsiff Court challenging E.P.No. 73/2018 in O.S.No. 472/15 and the cases were under the consideration of the Hon'ble Court. In this circumstance these matters were reported to the Sub Collector, Kollam. 293/21, O.S.No. 294/21 and O.S.No. 295/21 before the Hon'ble Munsiff Court challenging E.P.No. 73/2018 in O.S.No. 472/15 and the cases were under the consideration of the Hon'ble Court. In this circumstance these matters were reported to the Sub Collector, Kollam. All the steps taken by this respondent are strictly abide by the Rules.” (Underline supplied) 4. Respondents 5 to 7 has also filed a detailed counter afÏdavit reiterating the stand taken by the 2nd respondent in the counter afÏdavit but contended additionally as follows: - 5. The writ petition has been filed suppressing material facts and as such on the said ground itself this writ petition deserves a clean dismissal. The averments in para-Nos. 1 & 2 of the writ petition that after the sale of certain extent of property now the petitioner is in absolute ownership and possession of 5.67 Ares of property situated in Re-Sy No. 348/1-1 of Block No. 20 of Chavara Village, Karunagappally Taluk, Kollam district is false and hence denied. 6. It is respectfully submitted that the true fact is that the petitioner was only in ownership and possession of 40.7 Ares of property in Old Sy No. 9987 of Chavara Village, Karunagappally Taluk, Kollam. The said property was acquired by the State of Kerala in the year 1972 in connection with Leksham Veedu Housing scheme. After the said acquisition, no property was left with the petitioner as per the old Survey. Thus, the averment that after acquisition, the petitioner was in possession of 5.67 Ares of property including Vadavuvaashi (excess land) is utter falsehood and hence denied. It is pertinent to mention that neither the gift deed No. 6405/1967 or gift deed No. 4356/1970 or the tax receipts during the relevant period is produced before the court. 7. The averments and allegations in para Nos.3 and 4 of the writ petition that the 4 th respondent was encroaching upon the property of the petitioner and that construction of boundary wall was obstructed which eventually lead to the filing of OS No.472/2015 on the files of the Munsiff’s Court etc. are absolutely false and hence denied. It is respectfully submitted that the 4 th respondent did not have any property near to the property scheduled in the OS No.472/2025 i.e, the plaint scheduled property. The suit was inturn not contested by the 4 th respondent as is evident from Ext.P1 and P2. are absolutely false and hence denied. It is respectfully submitted that the 4 th respondent did not have any property near to the property scheduled in the OS No.472/2025 i.e, the plaint scheduled property. The suit was inturn not contested by the 4 th respondent as is evident from Ext.P1 and P2. Finally, an ex- parte Judgment and Decree was passed by the learned court declaring the right, title and possession of the plaintiff/petitioner herein over the property, fixing the boundaries and also issuing a permanent prohibitory injunction. At the outset itself it is submitted that the said judgment and decree was obtained by the petitioner suppressing material aspects. It is respectfully submitted that respondents 5 to 7 were not parties to the said suit and that the judgment and decree is not binding upon them. 10. It is respectfully submitted that it is only when the Advocate commissioner, Surveyor, Amin came for demarcating the boundary and construction of compound wall, the respondents 5-7 became aware of the illegal acts of the petitioner herein. Until then the respondents 5-7 who were not party to the suit were clueless regarding Ext.P1 and P2. It is submitted that at the fag end of the execution proceedings, when the respondents 5-7 came to know that the petitioner has illegally obtained a judgment and decree behind their back and is trying to grab portions of their properties fully and partially using the said judgment and decree, they have filed claim petitions over the property under Order 21 Rule 99 of CPC claiming independent rights over their property. Unfortunately, the learned Munsiff dismissed the claim petition on the ground of limitation stating that the respondents have approached the court after 30 days from the date of dispossession and the same is evident from Exhibit P3 and P4. Soon after that, the respondents herein filed OS 293/2021, OS 294/2021, OS 295/2021 before the Munsiff Court, Karunagappally for declaring the right of the respondents over their properties, recovery of possession and also to declare that the judgement and decree in O.S 472/2015 does not bind the respondents and thereby to set aside the judgment and decree in OS 472/2015. In the said cases, the respondents entered appearance. In the said cases, the respondents entered appearance. Though the Munsiff’s Court granted ample time to file written statement, the petitioner herein did not file the written statement and the petitioner was set ex-parte and the case now stands posted for ex-parte evidence. Contrary to the above narrated facts whatsoever been stated in paras 6-9 of the writ petition are false and hence denied. 11. It is respectfully submitted that the most crucial documents the petitioners rely for seeking mutation of the plaint schedule property is Ext.P1 and P2. The foul play and illegality committed by the petitioners to procure Ext.P1 and P2 is borne out from re survey records. It is pertinent to mention that as per the plaint schedule and decree in OS 472/2015, the property of the petitioner is alleged to be comprised in Re Sy No. 348/1-1. But as per the re survey records Re Sy No. 348/1/1 does not corelate to the plaint schedule property/decree schedule property. Going by the pleadings in the writ petition, Ext.P1 and Ext.P2, the corresponding re survey No for the old survey no. 9987 is 348/1 but as per the basic tax register, the properties comprised in 348/1 correlate only to old Sy Nos. 9387 and 9379. The corresponding resurvey numbers for the old survey number 9987 as per revenue records are 333/1-333/24. The total extent of land in old survey number 9987 is only 44.05 Ares. As per the entries in the basis tax register, the entire 44.05 Ares of property in old Sy No. 9987 was acquired by the state of Kerala in connection with the Leksham veedu Housing scheme. It is also pertinent to mention that the petitioner does not have any case that there is any error crept in the resurvey. 12. Thus, a perusal of the revenue records including basic tax register would make it evident that the entire property in the old survey number claimed by the petitioner has been acquired by the state and that there is no property physically left as claimed by the petitioner. It is also evident from the revenue records that re survey number 348/1 does not correlate to the old survey number claimed by the petitioner and that the properties if any claim by the petitioner would only come under re survey numbers 333/1-333/24. It is also evident from the revenue records that re survey number 348/1 does not correlate to the old survey number claimed by the petitioner and that the properties if any claim by the petitioner would only come under re survey numbers 333/1-333/24. Thus, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has deceitfully obtained Ext.P1 and P2 by providing a wrong re survey number before the Munisff’s court and that too by arraying 4 th respondent as defendant who has no property anywhere near to the plaint schedule property. 13. The sum and substance of this counter afÏdavit is that Ext.P1 and P2 if implemented as such without adhering to the rules and regulations would tantamount to the cancellation of thandapper of 5 persons whose mutations were already effected based on their respective titles and possession. Thus, the mutation of the property of the petitioner without understanding the repercussions mentioned above will ultimately result in civil rights of several other individuals being infringed which will ultimately result in a flurry of civil cases which will take ultimately takes decades to resolve. All the above said aspects were brought to the notice of respondents 1-3 by the respondents 5-7. Thus, understanding the complexity of the issues involved and the possible infringement of civil rights that might occur, the 1 st respondent has rightly issued Ext.P5 expressing the disability to mutate the property of the petitioner.” 5. I have heard the contentions of both sides. 6. It is true that going by the judgments relied on by the petitioner, mutation of property and acceptance of tax will not by itself create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on the title and it only enables the person in whose favour the mutation has effected to pay land revenue. But in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to issue any such direction for the following reasons. Admittedly, the petitioner has not challenged Ext.P5, whereby the request of the petitioner for effecting mutation was declined. But in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to issue any such direction for the following reasons. Admittedly, the petitioner has not challenged Ext.P5, whereby the request of the petitioner for effecting mutation was declined. Further, the case of the petitioner in the writ petition is that he was in ownership and possession of 40.7 Ares of land in old Survey No. 9987 of Chavara village as per a gift deed and certain extent of the said property was sold and now the petitioner is in possession of property having an extent of 5.67 ares of property situated in R.S No.348/1 in Block No.20 of Chavara village for which he is seeking mutation in his name. The counter afÏdavit filed by the party respondents as well as the ofÏcial respondents reveal that the property description in the suit filed as OS No. 472/15 is 4.05 ares of land and excess property (total 5.67 ares) which is comprised in old Sy.No. 9987 of Chavara Village, and now changed as Re.Sy.No. 348/1-1 of Block No.20 of Chavara Village as per the resurvey records. In the Commission report filed the property was recorded as in Re.Sy.No. 348/1-1 part, but as per the village records the Re.Sy.No.348/1-1 does not correlate to the schedule properties in the suit and the corresponding resurvey number for the old Sy.No.9987 is recorded in the suit as 348/1 and the properties comprised in Re.Sy.No.348/1 correlates to old survey numbers 9379, 9987, 9387 and the extent is 42.10, the corresponding resurvey numbers for the old survey number 9987 are 333/1 to 333/24 and the total extent of land is 44.05 ares and as per the BTR this 44.05 ares of land was purchased by the Government under the ‘Laksham Veedu Housing Scheme’. 7. The further contention that, as per the village records, it was found that 42.10 ares recorded in the Court order comprised in 348/1 was under the possession of Koyakutty Ibrahimkutty Vaidyan and later on various transactions were made in respect of the said property. 7. The further contention that, as per the village records, it was found that 42.10 ares recorded in the Court order comprised in 348/1 was under the possession of Koyakutty Ibrahimkutty Vaidyan and later on various transactions were made in respect of the said property. Contentions raised by respondents 5 to 7 is that the filing of suit as O.S. No 472 of 2015 is a collusive one in as much as the 4 th respondent did not have any property near to the property scheduled in the said suit and respondents 5 to 7 were not arrayed as parties in the said suit and the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 472/2015 will not bind them. The suit was not contested by the 4 th respondent and exparte judgment and decree was passed declaring the right, possession and title of the petitioner over his property. In fact respondents 5 to 7 are in absolute ownership and possession of 12.81 ares, 0.81 Sq meters, 0.80 sq.m of property as per Ext R5(a) registered will and tax was paid as per Exts.R5(b) to R5(d) vide Thandaper Nos.18773, 18774 and 19592 respectively. The respondents 5 to 7 as well as the ofÏcial respondents would submit that if the request of the petitioner is allowed, it will result in cancellation of thandaper of 5 persons whose mutations were already effected based on their respective title and possession. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree and aggrieved by the illegality committed by the petitioner respondents 5 to 7 has filed O.S. Nos. 293/21, 294/21 and 295/21 before the Munsiff Court, Karunagapally for declaring right of the party respondents over their property, recovery of possession and also to declare that the judgment and decree in O.S No. 472/2015 will not bind the respondents and to set aside the judgement and decree in the said suit. It is taking into consideration the above said factual situation that by Ext P5, the petitioner was informed that steps for mutation of the property can be taken only after the disposal of O.S. Nos. 293/21, 294/21 and 295/21 before the Munsiff Court, Karunagapally. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, I find no reason to interfere with Ext.P5 and to issue direction to effect mutation of the property. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.