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. 37870 of 2008(G) ------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.E. MATHEW, S/O. EPPAN, AGED 52 YEARS, KALATHOOR HOUSE, MANIMALA VILLAGE, PONTHANPUZHA.P.O, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.J.JOSEPH PANIKKASSERY RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS (RESURVEY), CHALUKUNNU, KOTTAYAM. 3. DISTRICT SURVEY, SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT SURVEY OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, MANIMALA VILLAGE, KARIKKATTOOR.P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 5. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, L.A FOR N.H (KERALA STATE TRANSPORT PROJECT ACQUISITION - PUNALUR MUVATTUPUZHA ROAD), PONKUNNAM.P.O, KOTTAYAM. 6. ROSAMMA @ GRACY, W/O. PAUL, MURAKKAL HOUSE, MUTTUHCHIRA.P.O. BY SMT. SUDHADEVI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 37870 of 2008 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner states that he is the owner of the property in Survey No.459/2 of the Manimala Village. In the resurvey records the property has been shown as part of the property of the 6th respondent, who is none other than his sister. Realising the said mistake, the petitioner filed Exhibit P5 application before the second respondent. The application was considered by the Survey Superintendent, and he forwarded the same to the 3rd respondent for necessary action. Thereafter by Exhibit P8, the petitioner was informed that the matter is pending before the 3rd respondent. 2. Petitioner contends that the land is under acquisition for widening the Punaloor- Muvattupuzha road and according to the petitioner, unless the mistake is corrected, he will not be in a position to receive the compensation and other benefits arising therefrom. It is complaining of the delay in correcting the mistake, this writ petition has been filed. 3. Although, learned counsel for the petitioner raised several contentions to substantiate his contention that there has been mistake W.P.(C) No. 37870/2008 2 in the resurvey records, in my view, at least at this stage, it is not necessary for this court to examine the merits of the contentions raised. This is for the reason that, as is seen from Exhibit P8, at present the request made by the petitioner vide Exhibit P5 is pending consideration of the 3rd respondent, and hence, it is for the 3rd respondent to decide on the request made by the petitioner. 4. Therefore, I direct that the 3rd respondent shall take up Exhibit P5 application made by the petitioner and forwarded by the second respondent and take a decision on the request made by the petitioner for correcting the survey records. Orders shall be passed in Exhibit P5 as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within eight weeks of the production of copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 3rd respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm