Disposed

T.B.Shylendran v. the Dist. Collector

Kerala HC16 Oct 2008WP(C)/25498/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the District Collector to forward submitted representations regarding land purchase to the Taluk Surveyor. The Surveyor is mandated to consider the applications under the relevant Survey and Boundary Rules, including Rule 43, to demarcate boundaries within three months.

What did the court decide?

The first respondent directed to forward Ext. P5 series applications to the third respondent to proceed with boundary demarcation under the Survey and Boundary Rules within three months.

T.B.Shylendran Vs the Dist. Collector — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2008 / 24TH ASWINA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 25498 of 2008(I)

¶6

-------------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

-----------------------

¶9

1. T.B.SHYLENDRAN, S/O.BHASKARAN, AGED 39 YEARS, KUNNAMPALLYPURAM, THURUTHY HOUSE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR.

¶10

2. E.K.RAVEENDRAN, S/O.KUNJAYYAN, AGED 61 YEARS, EDAMVAYAL HOUSE, ENGANDIYUR, KUNDALIYUR, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN, SRI.A.RAJAGOPALAN, SMT.KALA G.NAMBIAR, SMT.LAKSHMI T.

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

-------------------------

¶14

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL LINES, KAKKANAD.

¶15

2. THE TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK.

¶16

3. THE TALUK SURVEYOR, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK.

¶17

R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/10/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

prv.

V. GIRI, J.

WP(C).No. 25498/2008

Dated this the 16th day of October, 2008.

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The petitioners claim to be the owners in possession of 6 cents of land and 3 cents of land in old survey No.619/2C/1 and 619/2C/5 of Kunnathunadu Village and 626/1 of the same Village respectively. Apparently the properties were purchased from one Suryanelli Plantations Pvt. Limited. The petitioners submit that since apparently smaller extent of land has been purchased from a larger extent, it is necessary that the boundary should be demarcated. Ext.P5 series representations have been filed before the first respondent.

¶25

Having heard learned Government Pleader also the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to forward Ext. P5 series applications to the third respondent who shall proceed to consider them in accordance with the Survey and Boundary Rules and do the needful. If the third respondent feels that the applications are to be considered under Rule 43 of the Survey and Boundary Rules in as much as the said lands have

¶26

WPC.25498 /2008 2

¶27

already been surveyed , then the applications shall be dealt with in accordance with the said rules and demarcation of the boundary shall be effected with notice to the neighbouring property owners, if any. The entire procedure will be completed , within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶28

V. GIRI, JUDGE.

¶29

Pmn/

¶30

WPC.25498 /2008 3

T.B.Shylendran v. the Dist. Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.B.Shylendran v. the Dist. Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.I.Prabhakaran Vs the R.T.a., Ernakulam

E.K.Sivadasan Vs the Manager, Kerala Financial Cor

Suhrabi Vs Secretary, the Land Tribunal, Kozhikode

V.P.Ramlath Vs Secretary, R.T.a., Kozhikode

Ms.Deepthi Nair Vs State of Kerala and Others

M.P.Davis Vs the Superintendent of Police, Thrissur