IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2009 / 19TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 35366 of 2008(I) ---------------------------------- PETITIONERS : ----------------- 1. SREENIVASAN, THEKKECHEKKATTU HOUSE, PADINJAREKKARA MURI, NEDUMPURAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK. 2. REMANI, THEKKECHEKKATTU HOUSE, PADINJAREKKARA MURI, NEDUMPURAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS RESPONDENTS : ------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFICER, THIRUVALLA. 3. CHANDRASEKHARAN.K.K, KANIPARAMBIL, NEDUMPURAM.P.O. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON ON 09/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 35366 of 2008(I) APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS : EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE SURVEY PLAN EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.11.01 IN O.S.NO.833/1996 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVALLA FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.SY.H5/26140/07 DATED 24.03.2008 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28.06.2008 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONERS EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 28.08.2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT -TRUE COPY- P.A. TO JUDGE pac ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No.35366 of 2008 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT The challenge in this writ petition is Exhibit P5. Exhibit P5 is the reply to an application made by the petitioner to the second respondent requiring to cut and remove the trees standing in the pathway/road leading to the residential premises of the petitioner. Reason stated in Exhibit P5 for not granting the request is that a suit filed by the 3rd respondent claiming title over the said pathway is pending consideration of the Civil Court. The pendency of the suit is not disputed by the petitioner and the ownership over the land in question is pending consideration of the Civil Court. If that be so, the stand taken by the second respondent in Exhibit P5 cannot be said to be perverse. If that be so, this court will not be justified in interfering with Exhibit P5 at this stage. The writ petition fails and hence it is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm