IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2008 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1929 W.P.(C).No. 5364 of 2008(L) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- PADMINI GOPINATH,SANTHINIKETHAN, (MURIYANATT) CHERTHALA P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT IN THE DEPARTAMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 3. TAHASILDAR TALUK OFFICE, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA. 4. TALUK SURVEYOR, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA. 5. CHERTHALA MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE CHERTHALA. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 5364 OF 2008 L ==================== Dated this the 22ndday of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T The prayer in this writ petition is to direct the 4th respondent to conduct the measurements and demarcate the boundary as sought for by the petitioner in Ext.P4 application, except the property comprised in Survey No.265/7B of Cherthala Vadakku Village. The further prayer sought is to direct the 3rd respondent to take necessary follow up action pursuant to Ext.P6. It is seen that by submitting Ext.P4, petitioner sought measurement of the property mentioned therein and fixation of the boundaries. It is stated that the 4th respondent came to the site with notice to others, but was obstructed by the 5th respondent. It is stated that Ext.P6 report to that effect has been submitted, but however there has not been any progress in the matter thereafter. 2. When this writ petition came up for admission, standing counsel appeared on behalf of the 5th respondent. On WPC 5364/08 :2 : instructions, counsel submits that the property that is sought to be measured is a private bus stand and that the title of the property belongs to the Municipality and that the details of the property are included in the property register statutorily maintained by the Municipality. Thus, according to the Municipality, the possession of the property is also with the Municipality. 3. From the submissions made by the 5th respondent, it is seen that obstruction offered by him when attempt of survey was made is on account of their claim of title that over the property that is sought to be measured. If there is a dispute on the title and possession, as is now raised in this case, this court will not be justified in directing the revenue authorities to conduct survey based on an application made by a rival claimant. The parties will have to establish their respective title and possession over the property in appropriate proceedings. 4. In view of all this, in my view, this court will not be justified in issuing the directions sought for. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp