IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2009 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15937 of 2006(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.PUSHKARAN, S/O.PARAMU, CHARUVILA VEEDU, THENNISSERI, KUTTIKKADE P.O., KADAKKAL, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KOLLAM. 2. ANCHAL RE-SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT HEAD SURVEYER(RE-SURVEY) OFFICE, ANCHAL. 3. TAHASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, KADAKKAL, KOLLAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.K. RAVIKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 17.8.1972 EXT.P1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 18.8.1993 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH OF THE PROPERTY AS PER OLD SURVEY DATED 8.12.72 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH PROPERTY AS PER RESURVEY. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 21.5.92 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT DATED 28.12.92 EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 12.11.97 EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 11.8.2003 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 15937 OF 2006 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The prayer in the Writ Petition is for direction to the second respondent to make correction in the resurvey conducted in respect of petitioner's property. Even though petitioner points out mistakes in resurvey Government Pleader submitted that respondents on verification found that resurvey is correctly carried out. Counsel for the petitioner pointed out a pathway is marked through the middle of the petitioner's property in the resurvey records and such a pathway does not exist. The claim of pathway is not a matter to be settled by survey authorities. It is for the person who uses it to claim it and there is legal procedure for establishing the same. If the public generally enjoy a right of way, the RDO will see that such way is not blocked. Similarly, individual right of way can be protected through civil court. Petitioner cannot have grievance if no one claims right of way over his property. W.P. is closed stating the above position with the result petitioner cannot have any grievance against a pathway marked by the 2 resurvey authorities in his property. However, besides the pathway if there is any mistake in regard to extent of property belonging to the petitioner shown in the survey records, then petitioner can make an application giving the sketch showing the property held by him. Second respondent is directed to make correction within two months from the date of filing of the application along with a copy of this judgment by the petitioner. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 3