IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2011 / 31ST SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 5391 of 2011(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- V.S.PAUL, AGED 86 YEARS, S/O. KUPPAN VELU, MANOHARA MANDIRATHIL HOUSE, CHENKARA KARA, KUMALI VILLAGE,PEERUMEDU. BY ADV. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE SRI.A.V.JOJO RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE TAHSILDAR, PEERUMEDU TALUK OFFICER, PEERUMEDU. 2. THE TALUK SURVEYOR, TALUK OFFICE, PEERUMEDU. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, KUMALI. *ADDL.R4. M.K.JOY, S/O.M.C.KORA, RADHAMEDU ESTATE, CHENKARA, KUMALI ADDL.R5. GEORGE M.THOMAS, KALLUPARAMBIL, CHENKARA, KUMALI (*ADDL. RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT 14.3.11 IN IA 4144/11.) ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) FOR ADDL.R4 SRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY FOR ADDL.R4 SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.5391/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PATTA DATED 23.1.1970. EXT.P1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DT 7.2.1986. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT 31.3.2010. EXT.P4: TRU COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.11.2010 IN WPC 34178/2010 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.2.2010 IN RSA 1390/2004 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 22.12.2010. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 5.1.2011. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.1.2011. EXTS OF ADDL.R4. EXT.R4(a): A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.145 OF 2009 DATED 25.8.2009 BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.R4(b): A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF INJUNCTION DT 8.9.2009. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 5391 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P8, an order issued by the 1st respondent. According to the petitioner, he owns 1 acre and 31 cents of land comprised in Sy.No.116 of Kumali Village. It is stated that his title over the property has been recognised by this Court in Ext.P5 judgment in RSA No.1390/2004, where it was held as follows: 6. Learned counsel for appellant requested that in that event right of the appellant in the property comprised in R.S.No.1333/8 & 9 may be upheld. Entitlement of appellant and his predecessor-in- interest is only regarding the property comprised in R.S.No.1335/8 and 9. Appropriate observations regarding entitlement of the appellant is made in Ext.A7 judgment. In the light of that observations, I do not think it necessary to make any direction in this case. 2. It is stated that the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 application to the 1st respondent for survey and fixing the boundary of the aforesaid property. Subsequently complaining of inaction on Ext.P3, petitioner approached this Court and in Ext.P4 judgment rendered in WP(C) No.34178/2010, this Court directed the 1st respondent to take action on the application for survey and WPC No. 5391/11 :2 : demarcation of the boundary. Petitioner thereafter filed repeated representations, and by Ext.P8, the Tahsildar has informed him that the property available in Sy.No.1335/8 and 9 has been demarcated. In this writ petition, petitioner submits that in the process of the survey mentioned in Ext.P8, his rights under Ext.P8 have been ignored. 3. In my view, if the petitioner is unhappy about the extent that is demarcated or that if any extent of property found in Ext.P5 is liable to be recovered from anybody else's possession, it is for the petitioner to work out his remedies before the Civil Court and this relief cannot be achieved by the petitioner through an indirect method of filing an application for survey before the Tahsildar. In that view, I am inclined to think that any further direction by this Court as sought for by the petitioner will amount to directing recovery of possession, which cannot be done. Writ petition therefore fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp