IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2011 / 19TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 21746 of 2011(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SAVITHA, W/O.MANOJ, THADATHIL PUTHEN VEEDU, ELANTHOOR WEST MURI, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB P.ALEX SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689645. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SURVEY, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SURVEY, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689645. 3. TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KOZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689645. 4. AYYAPPAN PILLAI, S/O.NARAYANPILLAI, THADATHIL VEEDU, ELANTHOOR WEST MURI, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689645. GP SMT. RAJASHREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 21746 of 2011 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1120 OF 2003 OF PATHANAMTHITTA SRO EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSIONER REPORT, MAHASSAR AND SURVEY PLAN PREPARED IN I.A.915 OF 2010 IN O.S.334 OF 2010 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED UNDER SECTION 13A OF THE SURVEYS AND BOUNDARIES ACT ON 4.6.11 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BEARING NO.C6-10990/2011 DATED 3.8.11 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT (True copy) P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ............................................... W.P.(C).21746/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 10th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Inaction on Ext.P3 application made by the petitioner under Section 13A of the Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961 is complained of in this writ petition. Section 13A of the Act confers power of revision on the District Collector to be satisfied about the illegality of determination of boundaries done in exercise of the provisions of the Act. It is seen from Ext.P4 that the District Collector declined to entertain the application, stating that in view of the pendency of Civil Suits, the application cannot be acted upon. It is challenging Ext.P4, the writ petition has been filed. 2. Admittedly, two Civil Suits are pending before the Munsiff's Court; one filed by the petitioner and the other filed by the fourth respondent. In one of those Suits, the prayer is for fixation of boundary. Therefore, if orders are passed on Ext.P3 application, that will virtually make the Suit infructuous. In that view of the matter, I am not persuaded to think that Ext.P4 is vitiated warranting interference of this Court. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs