IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 5783 of 2011(W) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- REENA WILLIAMS, T.C.14/1378, REX HOUSE, BAKERY JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.PREMCHAND RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN-695 001 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT, OFFICE OF THE SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS (RE.SURVEY), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN-695 001 3. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK.PIN-695 001 R1 TO R3 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.5783 of 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 24th February, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is stated as aggrieved of some mistakes crept in the survey records leading to an adverse order passed by the 2nd respondent which made her to file Ext.P2 before the 1st respondent. According to the petitioner, Ext.P2 appeal is pending consideration before the 1st respondent; without regard to which, the 2nd respondent has issued Ext.P3 notice of hearing. The contention of the petitioner is that, the original order having been passed by the 2nd respondent, there is no jurisdiction or competence for the 2nd respondent to issue Ext.P3 notice of hearing in respect of the appeal pending before the 1st respondent. 2. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent submits that Ext.P2 is not liable to be considered as an appeal as no such appeal is legally maintainable before the 1st respondent. It is further stated that on receipt of Ext.P2, the 1st respondent however, forwarded the matter to the 2nd respondent to W.P (C) No. 5783 of 2011 2 have a second look and it is accordingly that Ext.P3 notice has been issued. It is also discernible from Ext.P3 that one J.Sureshkumar, stated as the power of attorney holder of the petitioner, had submitted an application on 31.8.2010 before the 2nd respondent (referred to as item 2 therein) and it was referring to the said application that Ext.P3 notice has been issued by the 2nd respondent. 3. In any view of the matter, taking note of the submission made by the learned Government Pleader that the matter will be looked into by the 2nd respondent and appropriate orders will be passed, this Court does not find it necessary to go into the merits . 4. The writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and finalise the proceedings, forming the subject matter of Ext.P3, in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE ma /True copy/ P.A to Judge W.P (C) No. 5783 of 2011 3