not be any actual reduction of the land under the ownership of the petitioner pursuant to the resurvey that was conducted. Apprehending that the petitioner's reply would not be considered by the 2nd respondent, before passing orders as directed by this Court in the earlier writ petition, the petitioner once again approached this Court through W.P(C).No.8629 of 2017, which was disposed by a judgment that directed the 2nd respondent to peruse the documents on record, as also the pleadings in the case before him, before passing orders as directed by this Court on the earlier occasion. The petitioner is stated to have submitted a fresh representation along with the judgment in the latter writ petition, as also Ext.P11 report and sketch before the 3rd respondent, who forwarded the same to the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, Ext.P13 order dated 06.06.2017 was passed by the Tahsildar finding that there was an extent of 27 cents, which had to be included in puramboke land and thereby diminishing the petitioners property to that extent. In the writ petition, Ext.P13 order is impugned, inter alia, on the contention that before passing Ext.P13 order, the 2nd respondent did not consider Ext.P11 report of the First Grade Surveyor, which clearly indicated that, while in the case of the petitioner's holdings there was excess land shown in a
