JUDGMENT : The petitioner has approached this Court impugning Ext.P12 order of the 1st respondent – District Collector, wherein, the request for survey and demarcation of his property has been turned down, asking him to approach the competent Civil Court. 2. The petitioner says that Ext.P12 is egregiously improper because he had earlier approached this Court through W.P.(C) No.31890 of 2018 and that Ext.P9 judgment was delivered therein, with certain specific directions in Paragraph 3 thereof. The petitioner says that even though the directions in Ext.P9 judgment are unequivocal and firm, the 1st respondent – District Collector issued Ext.P10 order without adverting to the same, which constrained him to approach the said Authority again with Ext.P11 request for reconsideration of the matter. 3. The petitioner alleges that, instead of reconsidering Ext.P10 appropriately, the District Collector has rejected Ext.P11 through Ext.P12 order, directing him to approach the competent Civil Court. The petitioner, contends that both Exts.P10 and P12 are egregiously in violation of the directions of this Court in Ext.P9 judgment; and consequently prays that same be set aside. 4. I have heard Shri. M.R. Sarin Panicker, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri. Ashwin Sethumadhavan, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents. 5. The learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that, as is luculent from Ext.P12, the request of the petitioner cannot be considered by the District Collector, since it is a matter which will require extensive evidence to be lead. He submitted that this is because the dispute between the petitioner and his neighbour have now metamorphosed into several legal issues, exacerbated by the fact that a compound wall has been constructed, thus incapacitating the District Collector from issuing any orders under the Survey and Boundaries Act. He prayed that, therefore, Ext.P12 be left uninterdicted. 6. I notice that when this writ petition was considered earlier by this court, an order was issued on 27.07.2021 in the following manner: “The learned Government Pleader submitted that pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P9 judgment, the revision petition filed by the petitioner herein under Section 13A of the Survey and Boundaries Act was considered by the District Collector and Ext.P10 order was passed. The learned Government Pleader would refer to Section 14 of the Act and it was contended that the remedy of a person who is aggrieved by an order passed by the District Collector under Section 13A(1) of the Act is to institute a suit within one year from the date of notification subject to the provisions of the laws of limitation. It is pointed out that instead of instituting a suit, the petitioner has again approached the District Collector and has filed Ext.P11 representation seeking to reconsider Ext.P10 order. It is further submitted that the said representation was considered and Ext.P12 order was passed by the District Collector as early as on 04.10.2019 directing the petitioner to invoke the remedies under Section 14 of the Act.” 7. Going by the statutory Scheme of the Survey and Boundaries Act, there can be no doubt that the petitioner's attempt for reconsideration of Ext.P10 order by the District Collector, by preferring Ext.P11 application, is not tenable, since said Authority does not have any jurisdiction to either reconsider or review his own orders. 8. I am, therefore, of the firm view that the contentions of the learned Government Pleader, recorded in the afore extracted interim order is irreproachable and asked Shri. M.R. Sarin Panicker as to why his client did not invoke the appropriate remedy against Ext.P10. 9. Presumably discerning the mind of this Court as afore, Shri. M.R. Sarin Panicker requested that, if this Court is not inclined to accept the challenge of his client against Exts.P10 and P12 on its merits, then his client may be given liberty to approach the competent Civil Court. 10. It is needless to say that since Ext.P10 is an order passed under Section 13A of the Survey and Boundaries Act, the petitioner certainly has a right to approach the competent Civil Court under Section 13A(1) of the said Act. 11. However, at this time, Shri. M.R. Sarin Panicker submitted that the period when this writ petition was pending before this Court may be directed to be excluded by the Civil Court while computing the period of limitation under Section 13A(1) of the Act. I must record that the learned Senior Government Pleader, Shri. Ashwin Sethumadhavan, did not oppose this and submitted that he will not stand in the way of this Court passing appropriate orders in such regard. I must record that the learned Senior Government Pleader, Shri. Ashwin Sethumadhavan, did not oppose this and submitted that he will not stand in the way of this Court passing appropriate orders in such regard. Resultantly, I close this writ petition without any further orders; however, leaving liberty to the petitioner to invoke his alternative remedy under Section 13A(1) of the Survey and Boundaries Act and order that the period from 19.02.2020 - when this writ petition was filed by the petitioner, until the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, shall stand excluded while computing the period of limitation under the said Section.