Allowed

Kiran v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Nov 2009WP(C)/19734/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Kerala High Court disposed of a petition challenging a non-survey report. The court directed the fourth and fifth respondents to survey and demarcate the land allotted to the petitioner's share under a partition deed.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents 4 and 5 to survey and demarcate the lands described in the partition deed with notice to the petitioner and other respondents within two months.

Kiran Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 19734 of 2009(J)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

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

¶9

KIRAN AGED 30, S/O. LATE DIVAKARAN, MULLAKKAL HOUSE, MANGANAM.P.O., MANGANAM KARA, VIJAYAPURAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT KUNNATH HOUSE, NARIYAMPARA.P.O., KATTAPPANA. IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. MR.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE.

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

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

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF REVENUE SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶14

2. THE REVENUE DEVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM.

¶15

3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, O/O THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM.

¶16

4. THE TAHSILDAR, KOTTAYAM TALUK.

¶17

5. TALUK SURVEYOR, KOTTAYAM TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, KOTTAYAM.

¶18

6. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,. KOTTAYAM EAST POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM.

¶19

7. KEERTHI, AGED 25, D/O. LATE DIVAKARAN, MULLAKKAL HOUSE, MANGANAM.P.O., MANGANAM KARA, VIJAYAPURAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT

¶20

W.P.(C). NO.19734/2009-J:

¶21

8. SATHIYAMMA, AGED 49, W/O. LATE DIVAKARAN, MULLAKKAL HOUSE, MANGANAM.P.O., MANGANAMKARA, VIJAYAPURAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶22

R1 TO R6 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. K. RAMESH, R8 BY ADV. MR.V.K.SUNIL.

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/11/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

W.P.(C). NO.19734/2009-J:

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶27

EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO.199/2005 OF SRO.KOTTAYAM ADDITIONAL. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.

¶28

EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 17/06/2009 SUBMITTED TO THE R.4.

¶29

EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 24/06/2009 ISSUED BY THE ADDL. TAHSILDAR, KOTTAYAM ON APPLICATION TO TALUK OFFICE, KOTTAYAM.

¶30

EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE R.2.

¶31

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.

¶36

W.P.(C) No. 19734 OF 2009

¶37

Dated this the 10^th day of November, 2009

¶38

J U D G M E N T

¶39

By Ext.P1 partition deed entered into between the petitioner, his sister and mother, a parcel of land 2.02 ares in extent, situated in R.Sy No.188/2/1 of Vijayapuram Village (Old Survey No.303/3) was set apart to the petitioner's share. He thereafter moved the Tahsildar for pointing out the boundaries of the land allotted to his share under Rule 43 of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Rules. The Tahsildar forwarded the application to the Taluk Surveyor, who issued notice to the petitioner, his mother and sister who are parties to Ext.P1 partition deed. Since they raised a dispute regarding the boundaries and objected to the survey, the fifth respondent did not conduct the survey. He thereupon submitted a report to that effect to the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar in turn sent a letter to the petitioner informing him that he should move the civil court for resolution of the dispute. Ext.P4 is under challenge in this writ petition wherein the petitioner seeks a direction to the official respondents to survey and demarcate the boundaries of the lands set apart to his share in

¶40

W.P.(C) No. 19734/09

¶41

¶42

Ext.P1 partition deed.

¶43

Sri. K.Ramesh, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents submits that it was due to the objections raised by respondents 7 and 8 that the Taluk Surveyor did not conduct the survey. Sri. V.K.Sunil, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 7 and 8 submits that they have an objection regarding the common boundaries separating their properties from the property allotted to the share of the petitioner, that the lands partitioned as per Ext.P1 are lands which were already surveyed and later resurveyed.

¶44

As the owner of the lands described in A schedule to Ext.P1 partition deed, the petitioner is entitled to have the lands allotted to his share surveyed and demarcated by the Tahsildar. Since the petitioner claims ownership over the lands pursuant to the partition deed, necessarily the lands allotted to the other sharers will have to be surveyed. In such circumstances, I find no merit in the objection raised by respondents 7 and 8 that lands set apart to the petitioner's share cannot be surveyed and demarcated. I accordingly over rule their objections and dispose of this writ petition with a direction to

¶45

W.P.(C) No. 19734/09

¶46

¶47

respondents 4 and 5 to survey the lands described in Ext.P1 partition deed and to point out the boundaries of the lands alloted to the share of the petitioner described in schedule A thereto with notice to the petitioner and respondents 7 and 8. Needful in the matter shall be done expeditiously and in any event within two months from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before the Tahsildar, KottayamTaluk.

¶48

P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE

¶49

vps

Kiran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kiran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mathew Ittycheria Vs State

Prince Vs Divisional Forest Officer

Lissi Vs the Assistant Engineer

Marico Limited Vs Union of India

M/S.Kpl Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India

K.R.Gouri Amma College Vs State of Kerala