Disposed

G.Bovas v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Dec 2011WP(C)/3414/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition concerning a reduction in land extent following resurvey, the High Court directed the Tahsildar to reconsider a pending application for rectification within eight weeks of the judgment's production and disposed of the petition accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Tahsildar to consider The Petitioner's pending application for correction of survey records within eight weeks.

G.Bovas Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

SATURDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2011 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 3414 of 2006(F)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

G.BOVAS,PANDIMAMVILA HOUSE, KOKKUZHIKUNNU, MANIYANKODE.P.O, KALPATTA, WAYANAD.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.BABU KUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO REVENUE,

¶11

SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

2. THE RESURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, RESURVEY OFFICE, S.BATHERY.

¶13

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KALPATTA NORTH, WAYANAD.

¶14

4. THE TAHSILDAR, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD.

¶15

5. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SURVEY (LR), CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM.

¶16

6. MADHULE MAYE, NOW WORKING AS DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SURVEY (LR), CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM.

¶17

R1 TO R6 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

BKA

¶20

WP(C).No. 3414 of 2006(F)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONE	R'(S) EXHIBIT	S:
EXT.P1	COPY OF THE PETITIONER	SALE DEED EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE BY ONE DEVAKIAMMA DATED 18.07.2001.
EXT.P2	COPY OF THE BEFORE THE 16.07.2001.	APPLICATION FOR SURVEY ADALATH SUBMITTED 2ND RESPONDENT BY DEVAKIAMMA DATED
EXT.P3	COPY OF THE DEVAKIAMMA	INTIMATION SENT TO 2ND RESPONDENT BY DATED 23.07.2001.
EXT.P4	COPY OF THE 3RD RESPOND	REGISTERED LETTER SENT BY PETITIONER TO ENT DATED 26.04.2002.
EXT.P5	COPY OF THE THE 2ND AND	LAWYER NOTICE SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO 3RD RESPONDENTS DATED 07.07.2003.
EXT.P6	COPY OF THE PETITIONER	REPLY SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE DATED 18.09.2003.
EXT.P7	COPY OF the PETITIONER	REPLY SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE DATED 01.09.2003.
EXT.P8	COPY OF THE RESPONDENT 19.11.2003.	PETITION SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH ALONG WITH THE SURVEY SKETCH DATED
EXT.P9	COPY OF THE MINISTER OF	REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CHIEF KERALA DATED 30.09.2004.
EXT.P10	COPY OF THE DATED 08.10	INTIMATION ISSUED BY the 4TH RESPONDENT .2004.
EXT.P11	COPY OF THE BY THE PETI	REPRESENTATION SENT TO THE CHIEF MINISTER TIONER DATED 26.10.2004.
EXT.P12	COPY OF THE	CIRCULAR B1/16891/95 DATED 26.05.1995.
EXT.P13	COPY OF THE THE TAHSILD	CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO AR DATED 03.05.1997.

¶23

WP(C).No. 3414 of 2006(F)

¶24

EXT.P14 COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS DATED 16.02.2005.

¶25

EXT.P15 COPY OF THE INTIMATION ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VENGAPPALLY DATED NIL.

¶26

RESPONDENT'(S) EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE

BKA

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -----------------------------------------WPC NO. 3414 OF 2006

¶31

-----------------------------------------Dated this the 3^rd day of December, 2011

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

The pleadings in this writ petition show that an extent of 1.74 acres of land in Survey No.55 of Vengappally Village,

¶34

was purchased by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, on finalisation of the resurvey, there was reduction in the extent of land, and that the prior owner himself had made a complaint for the rectification of the alleged mistaken survey. It is stated that despite having received the complaint, respondents have not taken any action for redressing the complaints. With these allegations, the writ petition has been filed for appropriate orders.

¶35

From the counter affidavit filed, it is seen that the survey was finalised in 1994 and that grievances of this nature can be redressed by the Tahsildar concerned. According to the respondents, it is for the petitioner to approach Tahsildar and, if any, such complaint is made, the

¶36

WPC NO. 3414 OF 2006

¶37

..2..

¶38

same will be duly considered.

¶39

Since the stand of the respondents is that Tahsildar is the competent authority to deal with grievance such as the one raised by the petitioner, it is for the petitioner to move the Tahsildar.

¶40

However, it is the specific case of the counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P8 application filed by the petitioner for correction of the Survey records is now pending before the Tahsildar and that the said application should be ordered, to be considered. Taking note of this submission, it is directed that on production of the copy of this judgment, the Tahsildar will consider Ext.P8 application made by the petitioner, if the same has been revived and is pending. This shall be done, at any rate, within eight weeks of production of copy of the judgment.

¶41

This writ petition is disposed of.

¶42

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDG E

¶43

bka/-

G.Bovas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Bovas 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

M.v.Mani Vs State of Kerala

K.M.Ramani Vs State of Kerala

Aleiyamma Vs the District Collector, Wayanad

Nikhil Balakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

C.H.Abdurahiman Vs the Commissioner of Land Revenue

Venu Nair Vs Dist.Collector, Kollam