IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 8TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 30121 of 2010(M) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- T.P.P.SAIBUNNISA, AGED 56 YEARS, W/O.B.MOHAMMED, MP V/399, CHERUVATHOOR ROAD, MONGAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.RAJEEV. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 001. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR – 670 701. 3. THE TAHASILDAR, KANNUR – 670 701. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VALAPATTANAM, KANNUR – 670 701. 5. THE TALUK SURVEYOR, KANNUR – 670 701. R1 TO R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NARAYANAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.30121 of 2010 (M) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 30th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Complaint of the petitioner is that Ext.P4 order dated 08/09/2010 issued by the 3 rd respondent is not implemented by the 5 th respondent. According to the petitioner, on an application made by her requesting to demarcate the boundary of her property, the 3 rd respondent passed Ext.P4 order. It is this order, which is stated to be not implemented. If as stated by the petitioner, Ext.P4 order has been issued, there is no reason why the order shall not be implemented. Now that according to the petitioner, the order is still in force, it is directed that the 5 th respondent shall take appropriate action pursuant to Ext.P4. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of this writ petition. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg