AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 172 wordsGopinath P., J
Petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the fact that Exts.P3& P4 applications filed by the petitioner for effecting mutation in respect of property obtained by the petitioner through Sale Deed No.235 of 1986 of Ernakulam SRO, have not been considered by respondents 2 & 3.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner will be satisfied with a direction being issued to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
The learned Senior Government Pleader submits that there is no objection in a direction being issued to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3.
Accordingly, this writ petition will stand disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3, in accordance with law and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.