IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2010 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 15424 of 2010(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- N.KRISHNAN, NITVE HOUSE, T.C.54/225, NEMAM VILALGE, PAPPANAMKODE PO THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .18 BY ADV. SRI.N.SUKUMARAN SRI.S.SHYAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF SURVEY, COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. K.V.SIMON, S/O.K.VARAPPAN, KONIKKARA HOUSE ,T.C.54/238, NEMOM PO THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-20 GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 15424 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 27th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T In this writ petition the petitioner is challenging Ext.P11 order of the 2nd respondent passed in respect of 13 cents of property allegedly belonging to the petitioner. In respect of the property, the petitioner filed O.S.No.160/98 before the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram, which has been decreed. But later on it was found that there was a mistake in the re-survey plan. The petitioner filed Ext.P4 petition before the 3rd respondent for correction of the resurvey plan. Since no orders were passed on Ext.P4, the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 before the 2nd respondent to direct the 3rd respondent to dispose of Ext.P4 immediately. Ext.P4 was allowed. But the 3rd respondent did not comply with the directions. Again the petitioner took up the matter with the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent decided to hear the matter himself. After hearing, the 2nd respondent passed Ext.P11 order. That is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. Ext.P11 reads thus: “Both parties have been heard. The respondent has got a decree from the Munsiff Court. Case is dismissed.” It does not require elaborate consideration of facts and law to decide that Ext.P11 order is an order in violation of the principles of natural w.p.c.15424/10 2 justice, since it does not contain any reasons whatsoever. Moreover, it is the petitioner who obtained the decree. The 2nd respondent does not also appear to have applied his mind to the case. Therefore, the same is liable to be quashed on those grounds alone. I do so. The 2nd respondent shall reconsider the matter, hear the parties afresh and pass a reasoned order dealing with each and every contention of both parties. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge