IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2009 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 28346 of 2007(Y) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SIVADAS, NADAPPURAYIL VEEDU, KUMARAKOM EAST POST OFFICE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.K.KARTHIKEYA PANICKER SMT.DAYA K. PANICKER RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE RE-SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, RE-SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT'S OFFICE, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. THE HEAD SURVEYOR, NO.1 SECTION, RESURVEY OFFICE, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, KUMARAKOM. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.SANDESH RAJA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 28346/2007-Y APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 19/07/2004. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 03/07/2003. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 23/07/2003 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 12/11/2003 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 27/11/2003 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 03/12/2003 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 39000/2003 DATED 29/06/2006. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE THANDAPER EXTRACT DATED 28/07/2007 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 28346 of 2007 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 8th June, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner claims to be the owner of 91 Ares and 20 sq. meters of property comprised in Sy.No. 226/3 of Kumarakom village. According to the petitioner, when he approached the Village Officer for paying tax, he was told that his property comprises only 88 Ares and 95 sq. meters and not 91 Ares and 20 sq. meters. This is on account of correcting the resurvey records and the respondents are not prepared to re-consider the same. According to the petitioner, this stand of the respondents amounts to violation of Ext. P7 judgment of this Court . The petitioner also submits that this amounts to violation of property rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “(a) to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction to call for the records leading to Ext. P8 and quash the same to the extent it is concerned with property coming under Sy. No. 226/3 at Al. No. 3 of the Ext. P 8. (b) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent to restore the extend of land of the petitioner comprised in Sy. No. 226/3 of Kumarakom village in the registry as 91 Are 20 Square meter instead of 88 Are 95 square meter. (c) to declare that the entry made on the revenue records behind the back of the petitioner reducing the extend of land comprised in Sy. No. 226/3 of Kumarakom village from 91 Are 20 sqare meter to 88 Are 95 Square meter is highly illegal, arbitrary, malafide, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 and 300A of the Constitution.” 2. A counter affidavit has been filed, wherein it has been stated that in pursuance of Ext. P7 judgment, the Survey Superintendent had examined the matter and corrected the records without changing the physical boundary of the petitioner's property. It is further stated W.P.C. No. 28346/07 -: 2 :- that this was necessitated since, on an examination of a complaint filed by one K.V. Viswanathan, who was the 3rd respondent in Ext. P7 judgment, it was found that the correction was necessary. It is pursuant to the same, the said correction was made in the revenue records. It is also stated in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit that such correction has been made on the basis of actual possession of land also. It is categorically stated therein that the same was done after hearing the parties and considering the objections filed by them. 3. According to the petitioner, after Ext. P7 judgment, the petitioner has not received any notice regarding any correction whatsoever. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. First of all, I note that in the writ petition in which Ext. P7 judgment was passed, the said K.V. Viswanathan was the 2nd respondent. The petitioner has not chosen to make the said person as a party to this writ petition. Secondly, although the counter affidavit has been filed as early as on 21-5-2008 in which there is a specific averment to the effect that it is in accordance with Ext. P7 judgment that the Survey Superintendent has considered the matter and made the correction after hearing the parties and considering the objections filed by them, the petitioner has not chosen to file any reply to the counter affidavit. That being so, the averments in the counter affidavit that the correction has been made after hearing the parties and considering the objections filed by them stands uncontroverted. In such circumstances, the remedy of the petitioner lies in filing a suit in the matter seeking appropriate reliefs,which has been specifically stated so in Ext. P7 judgment itself. That being so, without prejudice to that right, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/