Disposed

P.v.Riyas v. District Collector Malappuram

Kerala HC1 Dec 2011WP(C)/3234/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition concerning a land boundary dispute, the Court directed the Tahsildar to conduct a survey of the respective holdings of the petitioner and additional respondents within four weeks to resolve the controversy and prevent possession issues.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to conduct a survey of the respective holdings of the petitioner and additional respondents within 4 weeks; meanwhile, no portion of the petitioner's property shall be take

P.v.Riyas Vs District Collector Malappuram — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2011 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 3234 of 2011(D) -------------------------

¶5

PETITIONER(S): ---------------

¶6

P.V.RIYAS, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. MOHAMAD, RESIDING AT PUTHENVEETTIL HOUSE, EDAVANNA.P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶7

BY ADV. SMT.MOLLY JACOB SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF SRI.P.M.POULOSE

¶8

RESPONDENT(S): ---------------

¶9

1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM, COLLECTORATE, MALAPPURAM.P.O., MALAPPURAM.

¶10

2. THE TAHSILDAR ERNAD, ERNAD TALUK, MANJERI.P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

3. VILLAGE OFFICER, EDAVANNA VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶12

ADDL.R4. MANDANPAL MURALI, AGED 55, S/O.GOVINDANKUTTY, MANDAPAL, EDAVANNA VILLAGE, ERANADU TALUK, MALAPPURAM.

¶13

ADDL.R5. SANTHA, W/.MANDANPAL MURALI, - DO -

¶14

(ADDL.RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 3.3.2011 IN I.A.NO.3326/11)

¶15

ADV. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN FOR ADDL.R4 AND R5 SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI FOR ADDL.RES. SRI.THUSHAR NIRMAL SARATHY FOR ADDL.RES. SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR FOR ADDL.RES. SRI.P.K.RAKESH KUMAR FOR ADDL.RES. SMT.M.A.RUXANA FOR ADDL.RES. SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE FOR R1 TO R3

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WPC NO.3234/11

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶20

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED DOCUMENT NO.706/2006 OF S.RO. MANJERI.

¶21

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 3.6.1980 OF THE TALUK LAND BOARD.

¶22

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX REGISTER PREPARED AFTER THE RESURVEY.

¶23

EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH PREPARED AT THE TIME OF TAKING POSSESSION OF EXCESS LAND.

¶24

EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH PREPARED BY THE RESURVEY TEAM AFTER RESURVEY.

¶25

EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER DT 29.1.11.

¶26

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

¶27

EXT.R4(a): PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DT.2.1.10 OF DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM.

¶28

EXT.R4(b): PHOTOCOPY OF THE DEED OF ASSIGNMENT BEARING NO.C555486/08 DT 7.8.2010.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 3234 OF 2011

¶33

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

¶34

Dated this the 1^st day of December, 2011

¶35

J U D G M E N T

¶36

Petitioner claims to be the owner of 88 cents of land in RS No.99/4, Block No.72 of Edavanna Village covered by Ext.P1 title deed. This writ petition has been filed on the apprehension that under the cover of assignment of the lands taken over by Ext.P2 and its assignment and distribution, third parties are likely to be put in possession of portion of his properties.

¶37

However, the party respondents, the additional respondents who got themselves impleaded, contended that on the strength of Exts.R4(a) and R4(b) order and deed of assignment, they were assigned 2 ares of land in RS No.99/1 of Edavanna Village and that under the cover of the interim order passed by this Court directing that no part of the property of the petitioner shall not be taken over, they were prevented from enjoying their properties.

¶38

Thereafter, parties were heard on 17^th of November, 2011 when it was disclosed that while the petitioner is having title over 88 cents of land in RS No.99/4, the respondents were

¶39

WPC No.3234/11

¶40

:2 :

¶41

claiming title over 2 ares of land in RS No.99/1 of Edavanna Village. Taking note of this fact, this Court passed order dated 17^th of November, 2011 clarifying that the interim order passed by this Court cannot be to the prejudice of the additional respondents.

¶42

Today when the matter came up, learned counsel for the petitioner complained that taking advantage of the order dated 17^th of November, 2011, attempt was being made to take over possession of a portion of his property. Since survey number of the respective properties are different, ordinarily there cannot be any conflict of interest. However, in the light of the allegation of the petitioner that respondents are likely to take over possession of a portion of his property and its denial by all the respondents, I feel the issue basically is one of dispute of boundary between the petitioner and the additional respondents. This issue can be sorted out only if a proper survey of the property is conducted. Such survey has to be conducted by the 2^nd respondent with the assistance of the Taluk Surveyor.

¶43

Therefore, in order to resolve the controversy between both the petitioner and the additional respondents, I direct that,

¶44

WPC No.3234/11

¶45

:3 :

¶46

on the production of a copy of this judgment, the 2^nd respondent will conduct survey of the respective holdings of the petitioner and additional respondents 4 and 5 based on their respective title deeds and on such demarcation, it will be open to the respective parties to enjoy their respective holdings. It is directed that this process shall be completed by the 2^nd respondent with notice to the parties concerned and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶47

It is directed that in the meanwhile, no portion of the property of the petitioner covered by Ext.P1 shall be taken over or distributed to third parties.

¶48

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶49

Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶50

¶51

//True Copy//

¶52

PA to Judge

P.v.Riyas v. District Collector Malappuram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.v.Riyas v. District Collector Malappuram

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

M.I.Baby Vs K.Jayakumar

G.Seetha Vs District Supply Officer

Krishnan Nair Vs the Superintendent of Surveys

Institute of Smail Enterprises & Develop Vs National Council of Applied Economic Res

M.a.Seena Ashraf Vs the Tahsildar, Kunnathunadu and Others

Sukumaran.P.K. Vs State of Kerala and 2 Others