IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2009 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1931 WA.No. 366 of 2007 ---------------------------------- AGAINST JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.31496/2004 DATED 10.10.2006 APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ PAPPU @ CHACKU, S/O. AUGUSTHY, PAREKATTIL HOUSE, KIDANGOOR KARA, THURAVOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF SURVEY, RESURVEY RAILWAY STATION ROAD, ALUVA. 3. LONAPPAN @ PAPPU, S/O. LONAPPAN, MARAKKADAN HOUSE, KIDANGOOR KARA, THURAVOOR. 4. THE ASST. DIRECTOR, RE-SURVEY OFFICE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) FOR R3 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & Kurian Joseph, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A. No.366 of 2007 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 2nd day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. Aggrieved by the order dated 10th October, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.31496 of 2004, the present writ appeal is filed. The petitioner in the writ petition has sought for the following prayers: i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent not to encroach upon the property of the petitioner covered by Exhibit P1 and P2. ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any order appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to consider Ext.P7 representation and take action forthwith in accordance with law. iii) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to call for the records leading up to Ext.P5 and quash the same.” W.A. No.366 of 2007 - 2 - 2. It is not in dispute that the notice of measurement under challenge in this proceeding is issued to the petitioner/appellant on the basis of the direction issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No.663 of 2004 (Ext.P6) and admittedly the petitioner/appellant has not challenged the order under Ext.P6. As such, in our view, the learned Single Judge was justified in rejecting the parallel invocation of writ jurisdiction. We see no error on the part of the learned Single Judge in declining to give the relief. 3. If at all the petitioner/appellant is aggrieved by the notice Ext.P5 only on the ground of the alleged ex parte order Ext.P6, it is open to him to take appropriate steps to get proper relief in the writ petition in consideration under Ext.P6. With this observation the writ appeal stands rejected. S.R.Bannurmath, Chief Justice Kurian Joseph, Judge vns