IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC RIDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2011 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 29338 of 2011(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- LINCY VARGHESE, W/O. P. A. VARGHESE, PERUMPOIKAYIL HOUSE, UNNAKKAVU. P. O., KOTTANAD MURI, PERUMPETTY, MALLAPPALLY TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI. P. HARIDAS SMT. SIKKY RAVISHANKAR SMT. LIJI KUTTAPPAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA PIN – 689 645. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVALLA - 689101. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, (SURVEY ADALATH) MALLAPPALLY-682 027. 4. THE ADDL. TAHSILDAR, MALLAPPALLY. PIN – 682 027. R1 TO R4 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. M. J. RAJASREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PN WP(C).No. 29338 of 2011(N) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT. P1 COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O. S. NO. 139/2011 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVALLA FILED BY THE PETITIONER. DT. 6/9/2011. EXT. P2 COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT FILED IN O. S. NO. 139/2011 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVALLA SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER. DT. 10-10-2011. EXT. P3 COPY OF THE LETTER NO. L. DIS. 4308/11/B3 DATED 27-9-2011 OF 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT. P4 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11-10-2011 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT. P5 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13-10-2011 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE TAHSILDAR/SURVEY ADALAT. EXT. P6 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 31-10-2011 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P. A. TO JUDGE PN ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 29338 of 2011 N ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Petitioner claims to have purchased a property comprised in old survey No.140/1 of Perumpetty village, having an extent of 62.73 Ares. According to the petitioner, in the old survey records, there is a pathway with 6 feet width. It is stated that when re-survey was conducted, there has been an increase in the width of the pathway. Therefore, she made Ext.P5 application to the third respondent requesting that the re-survey records be corrected to make it consistent with the old survey records. No action on Ext.P5 has been taken. It is therefore that the writ petition is filed. 2. Thus, presently the grievance of the petitioner is one of inaction on Ext.P5 by the third respondent. In that view, I direct the third respondent to take appropriate action W.P.(C) No.29338/2011 : 2 : on Ext.P5, at any rate, within four weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/02/12 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge