Disposed

M.J.Simon v. the District Collector

Kerala HC30 Jan 2009WP(C)/886/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed regarding errors in property resurvey records. The High Court dismissed the plea for direct intervention, directing the petitioner to approach the Deputy Director of Survey and Land Records to execute the rectification as requested in a government letter.

What did the court decide?

Neither corrective actions nor rehearing ordered; instead, the respondent had to be approached directly with the judgment copy to make proper use of the government letter issued.

M.J.Simon Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2009 / 10TH MAGHA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 886 of 2009(E)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

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

¶9

M.J.SIMON, VELLAPPALLI, FROM MARAMANGALATHU MANNANAM KARA ATHIRAMPUZHA VILLAGE.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

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

¶13

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM.

¶14

2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM.

¶15

3. THE TAHSILDAR, KOTTAYAM.

¶16

GOVT.PLEADER SMT.SUDHADEVI

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ==============

¶19

W.P.(C) NO. 886 OF 2009 (E)

¶20

====================

¶21

Dated this the 30^th day of January, 2009

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

Petitioner submits that by Ext.P1 settlement deed of 27/7/1955, he acquired title over the property mentioned therein. According to the petitioner, in 1970, resurvey of the property was conducted and new survey numbers were also given. It is stated that there were certain mistakes in the resurvey and complaints were filed, but however, there

¶24

was no response.

¶25

It would appear that the petitioner prosecuted the matter before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and obtained Ext.P2 order, which was confirmed by the State Forum in Ext.P3.

¶26

According to the petitioner, by letter NO.C3,27397/94 dated 26/5/94, the 2^nd respondent informed him, that the mistakes in the resurvey have all been rectified. Petitioner submits that despite the statement so made, the mistakes have not been rectified and that his request to the 2^nd respondent did not yield any result. It is therefore that the petitioner now prays for orders for the rectification of the mistakes said to be existing in the resurvey records.

¶27

If as stated by the petitioner, 2^nd respondent has issued a

¶28

WPC 886/09

¶29

:2 :

¶30

letter as stated above, necessarily, the needful shall be done in terms thereof. Therefore, I direct the petitioner to approach the 2^nd respondent producing a copy of this judgment, in which case, the 2^nd respondent shall

¶31

examine the manner and do the needful as already mentioned.

¶32

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶33

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶34

M.J.Simon v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.J.Simon v. the District Collector

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

Dr.Ushamani M. and Others Vs M.R.Unni and Others

Agnes Solomon Vs Union of India

Rahmathulla Vs Tahsildar, Ernad and Another

Shree Vidyadhiraja Vidya Samajam & Anr. Vs Viswas Mehta

Vijayakumari Vs Joby v Paul

Jose Vs the District Collector, Thrissur & Ors.