IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 25TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 18307 of 2010(K) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ P.J.MATHEW, S/O.JOHNY, PARAPPATTU,CHATHANGATTU CROSS ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-25. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ERNAKULAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SURVEY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. THE TALUK SURVEYOR,KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.A. ASIF THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.18307/2010 K APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE DOCUMENT BEARING NO.7444/94 DTD. 13/12/1994. P2: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DTD. 7/08/09. P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.3245/1997 DTD. 12/03/1997. P4: REPORT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 26/07/93. P5: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 08/06/2000. P6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 5/10/09. P7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.5521/10 DTD. 02/03/2010. P8: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 24/03/2010. P9: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD.7/04/2010. P10: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEARING NO.G41263/92 DTD. 26/07/93. P11: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 05/05/2010. P12: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 16/06/97. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.18307 OF 2010(K) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims ownership and possession of 10.75 cents of land in Sy. No.256/4B of Kottappady Village in Kothamangalam, which he obtained by way of a gift deed bearing No.7444/94 executed by his father. It is stated that, when the petitioner approached the 4th respondent for demarcating the property and to issue a survey sketch, despite applications made, the 4th respondent did not issue the survey sketch sought for by the petitioner. 2. This lead the petitioner to approach this court by filing WP(c).No.5521/2010 and this court ordered that the representations filed by the petitioner to be dealt with. In compliance with the direction of this court, 3rd respondent passed Ext.P9 order stating that there are certain mistakes in the survey conducted in the property in question and that the 2nd respondent had submitted Ext.P10 report to the first respondent recommending cancellation of the final sketch. WPC.No.18307 /2010 :2 : 3. Coming to know of the above facts, petitioner submitted Ext.P11 representation to the first respondent requesting for an earlier decision on Ext.P10 proposal made by the 2nd respondent. Not only that a decision on Ext.P10 was not taken so far, but there was no response even to Ext.P11. It is in these circumstances the writ petition is filed. 4. Having regard to the fact that Ext.P10 proposal made by the 2nd respondent as early as on 26.7.1993 is still remaining unattended, it is directed that the first respondent shall consider Ext.P11 representation of the petitioner in the light of Ext.P10 proposal of the 2nd respondent and a decision should be taken at any rate within 3 months of production of a copy of the judgment . Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before the first respondent for compliance. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No.18307 /2010 :3 :