IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2009 / 10TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 886 of 2009(E) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- M.J.SIMON, VELLAPPALLI, FROM MARAMANGALATHU MANNANAM KARA ATHIRAMPUZHA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, KOTTAYAM. GOVT.PLEADER SMT.SUDHADEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 886 OF 2009 (E) ==================== Dated this the 30th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that by Ext.P1 settlement deed of 27/7/1955, he acquired title over the property mentioned therein. According to the petitioner, in 1970, resurvey of the property was conducted and new survey numbers were also given. It is stated that there were certain mistakes in the resurvey and complaints were filed, but however, there was no response. 2. It would appear that the petitioner prosecuted the matter before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and obtained Ext.P2 order, which was confirmed by the State Forum in Ext.P3. 3. According to the petitioner, by letter NO.C3,27397/94 dated 26/5/94, the 2nd respondent informed him, that the mistakes in the resurvey have all been rectified. Petitioner submits that despite the statement so made, the mistakes have not been rectified and that his request to the 2nd respondent did not yield any result. It is therefore that the petitioner now prays for orders for the rectification of the mistakes said to be existing in the resurvey records. 4. If as stated by the petitioner, 2nd respondent has issued a WPC 886/09 :2 : letter as stated above, necessarily, the needful shall be done in terms thereof. Therefore, I direct the petitioner to approach the 2nd respondent producing a copy of this judgment, in which case, the 2nd respondent shall examine the manner and do the needful as already mentioned. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp