IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 12TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 3288 of 2011(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. SAHADEVAN, AGED 70, S/O. NANU, R/AT SUMALAYAM, PADINJARUMMURI, ARUKALIKKAL, EZAMKULAM VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK-691523. 2. GOMATHI, AGED 68, W/O. SAHADEVA, R/AT SUMALAYAM, PADINJARUMMURI,ARUKALIKKAL, EZAMKULAM VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK-691523. BY ADV. SMT.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL) SMT.PRINCY XAVIER RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THAHAZILDAR, ADOOR TALUK,ADOOR-691523. 2. TALUK SURVEYOR, ADOOR TALUK, ADOOR-691523. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, EZAMKULAM VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, ADOOR-691523. 4. ANIL KUMAR, S/O. RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, R/AT ANIL SADANAM, AARUKALIKKAL PADINJARUMURI, EZHAMKULAM VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK-691523. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 3288 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 1st day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T The 4th respondent made an application to the 2nd respondent for measurement of his property. Petitioner says that the intention of the 4th respondent is to defeat Ext.P4 order of status quo passed by the Munsiff Court, Adoor in OS NO.6/11. According to the petitioner, when in pursuance to the application made by the 4th respondent, 2nd respondent issued Ext.P5 notice to him, he made Ext.P6 objection bringing the aforesaid facts to the notice of the 2nd respondent. It is complaining that inspite of the objection filed, 2nd respondent is proceeding with the measurement of the properties, the writ petition has been filed. 2. Obviously, the case of the petitioner is that the whole exercise is to defeat Ext.P4 status quo order passed by the Civil Court. If that be the case, in my view, the remedy of the petitioner lies before the Civil Court and not before this Court, muchless in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. However as far as the complaint of the petitioner that WPC No. 3288/11 :2 : ignoring Ext.P6 objection, survey is proposed to be conducted, I clarify that if objection has been received, 2nd respondent will take due note of Ext.P6 objection also while further action on Ext.P5 notice is taken. 4. Therefore, I direct that the petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 2nd respondent, who shall take note of the directions in this judgment and appropriate action shall be taken. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp