IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2009 / 14TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22250 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN OS. 343 /2008 AND OS.426/2008 of PRL.M.C.,NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- ALOSIOUS FERNANDEZ, AGED 50 YEARS,S/O.AUGUSTINE FERNANDEZ, FATHIMA QUARTERS,CHERUTHADY,PALLUVILLAYIL, KARIKULAM,NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADVS. MR.KRISHNADAS P. NAIR, SMT.K.L.SREEKALA. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR,TALUK OFFICE, NEYYATTINKARA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KARIMKULAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. JOOSA MORAIS,S/O.JOSEPHATH MORAIS, CELINE NIVAS,PALLUVILLA P.O., KARIMKULAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. K.MARY CELINE,W/O.JOOSA MORAISE, CELINE NIVAS,PALLUVILLA P.O.,KARIMKULAM, NEYYATTINKARA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.22250 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “i) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the second and third respondents to demarcate the property as per Exhibit P2. ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order of direction directing the first and second respondents to take appropriate action on Exhibit P11 and P11(a). iii) To issue a writ, order of direction directing the court below to stop all further proceedings in Exhibits P6 and P9 suits till the demarcation of the petitioner's property. iv) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction to call for the records leading to Exhibits P2 and P3.” 2. Petitioner has filed a representation before the respondents 1 to 3 for measurement and demarcation of her property and it is pending consideration, is canvassed for to give W.P.(C).No.22250 of 2009 - O 2 appropriate directions to the second and third respondents and also to stop all further proceedings in two suits, one filed by the petitioner as plaintiff and the other by the fourth respondent, both of which have been posted in the special list for trial tomorrow. After going through the writ petition and the connected materials with reference to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find this is not a fit case for invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is called for. At the fag end when the two cases are listed for trial, the above petition is filed on the plea that representation moved before the statutory authorities for demarcation and identification of the property of the petitioner remain to be considered. In the pending suit, petitioner could have taken appropriate steps for identification of her property and so much so, the cause shown for the relief claimed in the petition is prima facie not acceptable. The writ petition lacks merit and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-