IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 34884 of 2010(I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- MICHAEL DEVASIA, KURYALAPUZHA HOUSE, ELAPPILLY P.O., THODUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.RAJU K.MATHEWS. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ELAPPILLY VILLAGE, ELAPPILLY P.O., THODUPUZHA TALUK – 678 622. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, THODUPUZHA – 685 584. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SURVEYS, IDUKKI – 685 603. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NARAYANAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 34884 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims ownership over 1.65 acres of land comprised in Old Sy.No.783 (RS No.43 in Block 22) of Elappilly Village of Thodupuzha Taluk. According to the petitioner, he purchased the property by sale deed No.788/02 of Karikode SRO from one Kunjunjamma Philip, who in turn purchased the property by sale deed No.4936/80 of the aforesaid SRO. The case of the petitioner is that his predecessors in interest had mutated the property and had been paying tax in respect of the same. 2. While so, there was a bifurcation of the village and the property is now in Elappilly Village. It is stated that, after re survey, the property was erroneously shown as Government land and therefore seeking correction of the aforesaid mistake, the petitioner made an application. It is stated that although respondents 1 and 2 have recommended correction in the survey records, the 3rd respondent has now issued Ext.P7 communication to the petitioner stating that since the file concerning LA No.9/68 and the other records are not traceable, he is not in a position to WPC No. 34884/10 :2 : take further action on the application made by the petitioner. It is aggrieved by the above, the writ petition is filed. 3. If in the process of re survey, a mistake has been committed, the right of the petitioner for getting it corrected cannot be disputed and it is the responsibility of the respondents to effect such correction, provided a proper and valid application is made in that behalf. In this case, there is nothing to doubt that an application has been made by the petitioner. If that be so, petitioner is entitled to have the mistake corrected. On the other hand, if file is missing or is misplaced, it is the responsibility of the respondents to trace it out and if it is lost irretrievably, to reconstruct the same and take further action on the application. 4. In that view of the matter, I direct that the 3rd respondent shall pass orders on the application made by the petitioner in the light of the above, which shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 3 months of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp