The controversy in this case relates to a pathway, which the petitioners say does not exist;

while the 8th respondent contends to the contrary.

2. The petitioners have approached this Court impugning Ext.P4 order of the 3rd respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) and they say that it has been issued with a pre-determined impression that the 'pathway' in question is a 'puramboke' land. The petitioners say that, as is evident from Ext.P4, the RDO has found that they or their predecessors-in-interest have surrendered the property and that it is now remaining as part of the Asset Register maintained by the 7th respondent – Panchayat. They contend that this is a self deserving document, which has no legal validity; and therefore, that the action now proposed through Ext.P4 against them, under the Land Conservancy Act , is untenable and without any statutory basis.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the 8th respondent - Smt.R.Leela, controverted the afore submissions of Shri.G.Sreekumar, by saying that her client has no way for ingress and egress to and from their residential house and that she is now literally left in the lurch. She submitted that, therefore, unless action