IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2010 / 7TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 34016 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- L.KRISHNA KUMARI, AGED 65 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, W/O.LATE WARRIAR, VADAKKEDATH WARRAYM, AMBALAPPUZHA.P.O., ALAPPUZHA, NOW RESIDING AT FLAT.NO.4, MARI GOLD APARTMENTS, SAINTINES, PANAJI, GOA. BY ADV. SRI.MANZOOR ALI K.A. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, (SURVEY) COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF SURVEY, TALUK OFFICE, ALUVA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.34016/2009-V ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 27th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Aggrieved by the rejection of the application for demarcation of the property of the petitioner on the basis of Ext.P1 sketch, this writ petition has been filed. It is the case of the petitioner that she is the owner and in possession of 12.750 cents of land and 4.250 cents of land comprised in Survey Nos.517/2, 517/3, 517/12 of Nedumbassery Village. The said properties were obtained by virtue of a Partition Deed No.1413/1960 of Sreemoolanagaram S.R.O. The surrounding properties are owned by some of her relatives and strangers. When the petitioner made an application to demarcate the boundary on the basis of Ext.P1 sketch, the third respondent did not take any steps; therefore, the petitioner filed an application as No.17/08 before the Survey Adalath. The petitioner and her family is now residing in Goa. The case of the petitioner is that without going into any other details, by Ext.P2, a reply was given stating that no action can be taken in the light of the pendency of the dispute regarding the property. The learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for a reconsideration of the matter in the light of the fact that W.P.(C). No.34016/2009 -:2:- none of the aspects pointed out by her have been considered while rejecting the application. 2. The learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted that while conducting due enquiry it was found that dispute regarding property is existing and, therefore, the authority could not take any steps to demarcate the property. It is submitted that the remedy of the petitioner is to approach the appropriate Forum for adjudication of the dispute and, thereafter, in terms of any order passed by the concerned Forum alone the respondents can take steps in the matter. 3. It is upto the petitioner to get a proper adjudication of the dispute from any Civil Court or any other Forum. Depending upon the outcome, the petitioner will be free to approach the second and third respondents in the matter. With liberty to do so, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms