IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 16TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 2019 of 2009(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- VIJAYAMMA, W/O. PAVITHRAN, AGED 49 YEARS, CHITTEZHATH HOUSE, @ AMAKA GLASS, KATTAPPANA, KATTAPPANA VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVASIA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, UDUMBANCHOLA, TALUK OFFICE, NEDUMKANDOM, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR - IDUKKI, KUYILIMALA, PYNAVU, COLLECTORATE, IDUKKI. 3. SURESH BABU, S/O. SUDHAKARAN, SREEMANGALAM HOUSE, AHARITHENDOM BHAGOM, NEDUMKANDAM KARA - KALKOONTHAL VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. RAJENDRAN, S/O. BHASKARAN, SREEVILAYIL HOUSE, NEDUMKANDOM KARA, PARATHODU VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. DILEEP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX Ext.P1. True copy of the partition deed dated 30.4.1986. Ext.P2. True copy of the tax receipt dated 22.7.2008. Ext.P3. True copy of the plan issued by Superintendent of Survey Land Records, Resurvey Nedumkandom dated 14.2.2003 Ext.P4. True copy of the direction from the District Collector dated 22.5.2005. Ext.P5. True copy of the representation dated 25.9.2007 by the petitioner. Ext.P6. True copy of the reply dated 20.6.2008 by the Ist respondent. Ext.P7. True copy of the plaint O.S.No.13/2006 dated 20.1.2006. Ext.P8. True copy of the plaint in O.S.No.192/2007. // true copy // P.S to Judge. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.2019 OF 2009(M) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims to be the owner of 1 acre of land comprised in Sy. No.183/2 of Parathodu Village. She claims title over the property in view of Ext.P1 partition deed. According to the petitioner, she submitted Ext.P5 application to the first respondent requesting for survey and demarcation of the said property. By Ext.P6 she was informed that, as O.S. Nos,13/2006 and 192/2007 are pending before the Sub Court and Munsiff Court, Kattapana and as respondents 3 and 4 have obstructed , the survey can be conducted only after the disposal of the suits. Petitioner states that she is neither a party to the said suit nor is her property the subject matter of the suits. Therefore she submits that the reasons stated for declining survey are totally illegal. 2. Although notice has been served by Special Messenger to respondents 3 and 4, they have not so far entered appearance before this court to contest the claim of the petitioner. WPC.No. 2019/09 :2 : 3. Exts.P7 and P8 are copies of the plaint in O.S. Nos.13/2006 and 192/2007. These documents show that the petitioner is not a party to the suits. If that be so, the claim of the petitioner for survey of her property, could not have been declined due to the pendency of the said suit. 4. In that view of the matter and also since there is no contest raised by respondents 3 and 4, I quash Ext.P6 and direct the first respondent to survey the property belonging to the petitioner in terms of the description in the schedule to Ext.P1 document as sought for in Ext.P4, on the production of a copy of the judgment. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/