IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2011 / 20TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 18655 of 2011(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SANTHAMMA, W/O.SURENDRAN, PARAVILA VEEDU, MANJALLOOR, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM-691 001. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, PATHANAPURAM, PUNALUR-689 695. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT-689 695. 5. THE TALUK SURVEYOR, PATHANAPURAM, PLUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT-689 695. GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 18655 of 2011 APPENDIX EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 30.6.2011 VIDE NO.1285924 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE VIDE NO.D1-11575/71 DATED 20.6.2011 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 25.1.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT (True Copy) P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).18655/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 11th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P2 notice issued by the Taluk Surveyor. Petitioner's apprehension is that if survey will be conducted as proposed, the undisputed boundary will be altered. 2. In my view, as at present the writ petition is premature. The notice issued by the Taluk Surveyor is in exercise of his power under Section 10 of the Survey and Boundaries Act, 1965. Once the survey is conducted, notice under Section 10(1) of the Act, is bound to be issued to the parties concerned and only at that stage, can the petitioner have a grievance to be redressed, in terms of Section 11 of the Act by filing an appeal. Therefore, at this stage, the writ petition is premature and is therefore dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs