IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2008 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1930 WP(C).No. 13171 of 2008(R) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- AREEPARAMBIL LAKSHMI, W/O.C.KARIKKUTTY, AGED 51 YEARS, MATTAKULATHINGAL HOUSE, P.O.MONGAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. K.M. SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE TALUK SURVEYOR, TALUK OFFICE, ERNAD, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, ERNAD, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. SHRI.BABU C.K., S/O.KUTTIYAPPA, MATTAKULATHINGAL HOUSE, POOKKOTTUR VILLAGE, P.O.MONGAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. I.V. PRAMOD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.13171 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges Ext.P9 notice. Ext.P9 notice has been issued by the 1st respondent by which the petitioner was directed to appear in person or through agent to measure the properties mentioned therein. The petitioner's grievance is that the property in question belongs absolutely to the petitioner and the 3rd respondent without junction of the petitioner filed a writ petition and obtained a direction pursuant to which Ext.P9 notice has been issued. The petitioner submits that since it was without notice to the petitioner, the proceedings are illegal. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. It is not disputed before me that Ext.P9 notice has been issued pursuant to Ext.P8 judgment. Therefore, unless Ext.P8 judgment is reversed in a proceedings known to law, Ext.P9 notice issued pursuant to Ext.P8 judgment cannot be challenged by the petitioner, notwithstanding the fact that in Ext.P8 judgment the petitioner has not been made a W.P.(c)No.13171/08 2 party. The remedy of the petitioner lies in appropriately challenging Ext.P8 judgment. Therefore without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to do that, this writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd