Disposed

C.Rajeev v. the Tahsildar

Kerala HC24 Jun 2010WP(C)/8855/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, petitioners complained that revenue officials failed to measure a disputed property despite requests, while the Municipality obstructed the process. The court directed revenue officers to measure the property and fix boundaries within two months of the judgment, and ordered the Municipality to facilitate measurement. The petition was disposed of with these directions.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondents 1 and 2 to measure properties and fix boundaries within two months; directed Respondent 4 to facilitate the measurement.

C.Rajeev Vs the Tahsildar — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2010 / 3RD ASHADHA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 8855 of 2010(F) --------------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

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

¶8

1. C.RAJEEV, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.RAJAN, CHITTANIPPARA HOUSE, MELE PATTAMBI POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶9

2. PREETHI SAI RAJESH, AGED 30 YEARS, W/O.SAI RAJESH, CHITTANIPPARA HOUSE, MELE PATTAMBI POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. MR.N.M.MADHU

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

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

¶13

1. THE TAHSILDAR, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, OTTAPPALAM.

¶14

2. THE TALUK SURVEYOR, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, OTTAPPALAM.

¶15

3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, OTTAPPALAM.

¶16

4. THE OTTAPPALAM MUNICIPALITY REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, OTTAPPALAM.

¶17

ADV.MR. K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI MR. M.A. ASIF - GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 TO 3

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C).No. 8855 of 2010

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶22

EXT.P1:	COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2643/2007 DTD 22.6.07.
EXT.P2:	COPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DTD 17.02.2010 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, OTTAPPALAM.
EXT.P3:	COPY OF THE LATEST BASIC TAX RECEIPT DTD 17.2.2010 FOR THE YEAR 2009-10.
EXT.P4;	COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE MEETING OF R4 DTD 20.3.2009.
EXT.P5:	COPY OF REPORT OF R2 DTD 27.3.2009.
EXT.P6:	COPY OF PETITION DTD 15.6.2009 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE R3.
EXT.P7:	COPY OF THE INTIMATIION DTD 10.8.09RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONERS FROM THE THIRD RESPONDENT.

¶23

TRUE COPY

¶24

PA TO JUDGE.

¶25

S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

¶26

W.P.(C) No.8855 OF 2010

¶27

Dated this the 24^th day of JUNE, 2010

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

The petitioners allege encroachment into the petitioners' property by the fourth respondent Municipality. The petitioners' grievance in this writ petition is that in spite of a request to measure the property and demarcate the boundaries thereof, the respondents 1 to 3 are not taking steps in respect thereof. Although the fourth respondent Municipality originally agreed to the said course of action, later on they changed their stand and obstructed the measurement. The petitioners rely on Ext.P5 report of the Additional Taluk Surveyor to prove the same. The petitioners, therefore, moved the third respondent by filing Ext.P6 and the third respondent forwarded the same to the first respondent by Ext.P7. The petitioners' grievance is that nothing is being done in respect thereof. The petitioners, therefore, seek the following reliefs:

¶30

W.P.(c)No.8855/10

¶31

¶32

“i. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents one to three to take immediate steps to measure the property covered by Ext.P1 and to fix its boundaries within a time to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.

¶33

ii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the fourth respondent to facilitate for the measurement and fixation of the boundaries of the property covered by Ext.P1”.

¶34

2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader and

¶35

the learned Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent also. Nobody can dispute that there is in fact a genuine dispute between the petitioners and the fourth respondent in respect of the boundaries of the property. That being so, it is only appropriate that the properties of both are duly measured and the boundaries are fixed. Respondents 1 and 2 shall take up and complete the work of measuring the properties and fixing boundaries thereof as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶36

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶37

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶38

acd

¶39

W.P.(c)No.8855/10 3

¶40

W.P.(c)No.8855/10 4

C.Rajeev v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Rajeev v. the Tahsildar

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

P.Ramanathan Vs K.Balakrishnan Nambiar

M/S K.N.Security & Allied Services Vs P.Jagadeesan and Another

K.Muraleedharan Vs State of Kerala and Another

Navas. Rep. by P.A.H. Kunjikochu Vs Deputy Collector

Kamalamma Vs Kerala Water Authority

K.M.Hydrose Koyathangal Vs the Taluk Land Board