IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2011 / 7TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 2718 of 2011(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- AHAMMAD ASHRAF, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. (LATE) AHAMMED MUSTHAFA, THOTTATHIL KOTTAPURATH RABY MANZIL, MARAMPILLY.P.O., CHALACKAL, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.ARUN.B.VARGHESE SRI.ARUN.B.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. THE DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. PIN-682030. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, ALUVA EAST VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682036. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 2718 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 27th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T According to the petitioner, while he attempted to pay tax in respect of the property covered by Ext.P1, he was informed from the Village office that as per the village records, extent of the property is much less than what is covered by the document of title. Thereupon the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 application to the 2nd respondent requesting for correction of the aforesaid alleged mistake and in Ext.P3 he also sought mutation of the properties. There has not been any action on Exts.P2 and P3. That made the petitioner to make further enquiries. Thereupon he was given Ext.P5 reply, which indicated that the files have already been allotted to the Surveyor by name Mr.Biju Ramakrishnan. Subsequently, in Ext.P6 and its enclosures which the petitioner obtained under the Right to Information Act, he was informed that the aforesaid Surveyor had confirmed that the files were not entrusted to him. On account of the above, there has not been any progress in the matter and it is in these circumstances, this writ petition is filed. 2. According to Ext.P5 issued from the office of the 2nd WPC No. 2718/11 :2 : respondent, files have been allotted to the Surveyor, while according to the Surveyor, files have not been handed over. Thus, it is obvious that there is a confusion regarding the further action that was taken on Ext.P2. In such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served by directing the 2nd respondent to take action on the application made by the petitioner as it is evident that the application is misplaced. 3. Therefore, the only course open to the petitioner is to make a fresh application to the Superintendent of re-survey, in which event, it is directed that such authority will take appropriate and expeditious action for redressing the grievance of the petitioner. It is further directed that once the resurvey authorities complete the above process, it will also be open to the petitioner to approach the authorities under the Transfer of Registry Rules for getting the property mutated. Needles to say that it will also be open to the petitioner to seek an opportunity of hearing before the Superintendent of re-survey, in which event, that will also be considered. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp