IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2011 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 10898 of 2011(J) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. ABDUL RAHEEM, S/O. ABDUL RAHEM KUNJU, CHAMPOLIL PUTHEN VEEDU, THEVALAKKARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. SEENATH BEEVI, W/O. ABDUL RAHEEM, CHAMPOLIL PUTHEN VEEDU, THEVALAKKARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD SMT.S.GIFFARA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM - 691 001. 2. THAHSILDAR, KARUNAGAPALLY - 690 518. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF SURVEY, KARUNAGAPALLY - 690 518. 4. BAIJU, W/O. ABDUL AHAD, BILAL MANZIL, THEVALAKKARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPALLY - 690 524. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 10898 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 5th day of April, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioners, 4th respondent and her husband own and possess adjacent lands having an extent of 10 cents and 30 cents respectively. According to the petitioners, when the 4th respondent effected mutation, certain mistakes crept in the survey numbers and consequently portion of the petitioners' property was included in the thandaper of the aforesaid respondents. This was the subject matter of appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer. It is stated that the 1st respondent has set aside the proceedings effecting mutation and directed the 3rd respondent to effect survey of the land to make the records of possession and extent of land proper. Meanwhile, the 4th respondent filed OS 254/05 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Karunagapally, a copy of the plaint is Ext.P4. The suit is still pending. While so, petitioners made an application for survey and demarcation of the property to which the petitioners claim ownership and title. 2. In this writ petition, what the petitioners seek is a WPC No. 10898/11 :2 : direction to the authorities to conduct the survey as sought for by them. 3. In my view, when the parties are at logger heads and are before the Civil court agitating for the title and possession of the land in question, this Court will not be justified in directing survey to be conducted for the land, in respect of which the suit is pending. Therefore, if at all the petitioners want any such relief, it is for the petitioners to get the said relief by making appropriate application before the Civil Court itself. Therefore, I do not think the petitioners have made out a case for issuing any direction in this writ petition. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp