IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2011 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WA.No. 1944 of 2011 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.27341/2011 Dated 17/10/2011 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------- SHAMSUDEEN RAWTHER, AGED 71 YEARS, S/O.FAKEER MUHAMMED RAWTHER, RESIDING AT FAZIL MANZIL, PATTAZHI VADAKKEKARA, PATHANPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.N UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT (RE-SURVEY) OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT (RE-SURVEY), KARUNAGAPPALLY, PIN-691 008. 2. THE DIRECTOR (SURVEY), DEPARTMENT OF SURVEY, DIRECTOR'S OFFICE, VAZHUTHACADU, TRIVANDRUM, PIN-695 003. 3. THE ASST. DIRECTOR (RE-SURVEY) ASST. DIRECTOR'S OFFICE, KOLLAM, PIN-691 001. BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER, SMT. K. MEERA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A. No. 1944 OF 2011 and C.M. Appln. No. 1092 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. According to the appellant, he owns 2½ cents of property in old survey No.2335/1 of Pattazhi Vadakkekara Village. On the northern side of his property, Survey No.2334 is situated. According to him, when resurvey stones had to be laid down by the 1st respondent, one of the survey stones came to be laid inside the appellant's property and in spite of the complaint, there is no redressal of his complaint. 2. According to him, the concerned authorities rejected his complaint about the resurvey stone being laid wrongly inside his property and aggrieved by the same, he approached this Court by filing a writ petition. The learned Single Judge rejected the claim of the petitioner/appellant dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the issue involves W.A. No. 1944 of 2011 -:2:- adjudication of disputed questions of fact which has to be addressed only after verification of various documents involving enquiry into the questions of fact. 3. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion, when the complaint of the appellant is that the boundary stone is laid in his property and in spite of his complaint, the authorities have rejected the complaint, would only mean that there has to be factual verification of facts. Therefore, the learned Judge was justified in saying that the remedy of the petitioner is to move under Section 14 of the Surveys and Boundaries Act. 4. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, unless there is an order under Section 13, the appellant cannot approach under Section 14 of the above said enactment also is not acceptable to us for the simple reason that, if there is no speaking order as contended by him, the same could be a ground to be raised before the authority under Section 14 of the Act. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion nothing remains for our consideration. Accordingly, C.M. Appln. No. 1092 of 2011 is dismissed. Consequently, the Writ Appeal is W.A. No. 1944 of 2011 -:3:- dismissed, however reserving the liberty to the appellant to approach the authority under Section 14 or any other appropriate authority in accordance with the procedure. Manjula Chellur, Ag. Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb