IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2009 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 6679 of 2009(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.J.VARGHESE,S/O.OUSEP,ADAVACHIRA KANNANKOTTAL HOUSE,PALLIKKACHIRA.PO,PAIPAD MURI, CHANGANASSERY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. RESURVEY SUPERINTENDENT,PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. TALUK SURVEYOR,TALUK OFFICE, MALLAPPALLY. 4. MALLAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP; BY ITS SECRETARY. MR.P.N.SANTHOSH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.6679 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 19th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T By Ext.P10 judgment rendered by this Court in WP(C) No.26288/2008, the 2nd respondent was directed to survey the land mentioned therein. In this writ petition what the petitioner seeks is that while carrying out the direction in Ext.P10 judgment, Ext.P11, which according to him is an approved plan, should also be taken note of. As such, I see absolutely no reason to decline the prayer. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing that while carrying out the directions in Ext.P10 judgment, the 2nd respondent shall take note of Ext.P11 also. 2. It is clarified that this judgment shall not be taken as pronouncing on the acceptability or otherwise of Ext.P11 plan, and it is entirely for the 2nd respondent to decide the matter. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg