Devan Ramachandran , J.

The appellants challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.41878/2025, asserting that Ext.P10 communication of the Deputy Collector to the Tahsildar (Land Records) is improper, impermissible and contrary to the earlier judgment of this Court in WA No.1621/2024, namely Ext.P7.

2. Sri.Rajeev Koyickal – appearing for the appellants, argued that, as evident from Ext.P7 itself, even while the learned Division Bench of this Court allowed the survey of the property, it was clarified that it shall not be used for the purpose of the civil suits pending between the parties. He argued that ineluctably, therefore, the Deputy Collector ought to have heard both parties before Ext.P10 could have been issued; but alleged that he proceeded to do so without giving his clients any such opportunity. He contended that, consequently, Ext.P10 is unlawful and runs wholly contrary to the specific directives in Ext.P7 judgment.

3. Sri.George Thomas Mevade, learned senior counsel, instructed by Sri.Amal George - appearing for the first respondent, however, argued that, as anyone would discern from Ext.P7 – even from an ex facie reading of it, the learne