IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2008 / 8TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 23005 of 2008(L) -------------------------- OS.344/2003 of MUNSIFF COURT, CHITTUR .................... PETITIONER: ------------ 1. PARU,W/O.LATE PAZHANI AGED 56, RESIDING AT ATTANCHERRY, THATHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 2. VASU, S/O.LATE PAZHANI RESIDING AT ATTANCHERRY, THATHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 3. MEENAKSHI,D/O. LATE PAZHANI RESIDING AT ATTANCHERRY, THATHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 4. MANIKANDAN,S/O. LATE PAZHANI RESIDING AT ATTANCHERRY, THATHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 5. SWAMINATHAN,S/O. LATE PAZHANI RESIDING AT ATTANCHERRY, THATHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 6. SANTHAKUMARI,D/O. LATE PAZHANI RESIDING AT ATTANCHERRY, THATHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 7. SARITHA, D/O. LATE PAZHANI RESIDING AT ATTANCHERRY, THATHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.H.BADARUDDIN W.P.(C) No.23005 of 2008 : 2 : RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SHANMUGHAN,S/O.THANKAN, RESIDING AT PALLATHAMPULLI,THATHAMANGALAM VILLAGE CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 2. RAVI,.S/O. THANKAN RESIDING AT PALLATHAMPULLI,THATHAMANGALAM VILLAGE CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 3. SRUTHI,D/O.SIVARAMAN (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY HER GUARDIAN SHAMUGHAN THE FIRST RESPONDENT BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.23005 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 30th July, 2008. J U D G M E N T This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to quash Ext.P5 order passed by Munsiff, Chittur, in I.A.No.49 of 2007, an application filed by petitioners-defendants to set aside the report and plan submitted by the Commissioner. Under Ext.P5 order, learned Munsiff dismissed the application. 2. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for petitioners is that Commissioner was assisted by a Village Assistant who is not a competent authority under the Survey and Boundaries Act, and properties were not properly demarcated, and in such circumstances, Ext.P5 order is to be quashed. 3. On hearing the learned counsel, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in Ext.P5 order warranting interference in exercise of the powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petitioners are entitled to challenge the correctness of the plan prepared by the Commissioner at the time of evidence by cross examining the Commissioner or Village Assistant or W.P.(C) No.23005/2008 2 examining any other surveyor. Petitioners are also entitled to challenge ext.P5 order along with the final judgment, if it goes against them. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.